Floor Statements

I want to thank my good friend from California (Mr. Dreier). Particularly, I want to thank my good friend for leading us in this incredibly special, special time to remember an individual who, as we have heard from the speakers before me, individuals like Mr. Dreier who actually spent a lot of time with President Reagan, sharing with us the incredible person, an inspiration, that our 40th President, who we are celebrating this week the 100th anniversary of his birth, is to each of us.

As the gentleman mentioned, I did have the privilege of serving for his last 2 years as President, 1987 and 1988. But I think about what President Reagan meant to me, and when I think about what he meant to me, I know as I have listened to these speakers before me what he meant to so many of us in our Nation and the world today.

My friend Mr. Dreier mentioned in his early remarks what the country was like in 1980 when Ronald Reagan ran for President. We think what it is like today. We have over 9 percent unemployment. We have very low inflation. But in 1980, when President Reagan was running, we had not 9 percent unemployment, but 12 percent unemployment. We had something that we haven't had since the early days of President Reagan's administration, and that was inflation, inflation that was running 13 percent.

As a small businessman then, I remember what it was like. You did not know what to price your products at because you didn't know what you were going to be buying them for again, and it was an unbelievably challenging time. Plus, as a small businessperson, we had a prime interest rate that was 21.5 percent. We had home mortgages that were hitting 16 percent.

Now, those of us who can remember back at that time, talk about challenging times, those were challenging times. And to have someone who was the type of inspiration that Ronald Reagan was, who literally exemplified everything he believed, and we heard so much from our speakers before me, but to Ronald Reagan it was morning in America. He believed. He not only had confidence in himself, he had even more confidence in our Nation. He had confidence in those of us who were small business people, who were Americans. As was mentioned, it didn't matter whether you were immigrants, like my grandparents were from Switzerland, you were an American. He had not only confidence in this, but he could emulate this to all of those around us.

It was interesting, because back about 10 years ago in a Republican Conference of fellow Republicans in Congress, someone asked a question, who among us, and there were, I don't know, about 150 or so, who among us were inspired by Ronald Reagan to run originally. And over half of us raised our hands. As a matter of fact, it was about three-quarters of us. It was Ronald Reagan who inspired us to leave our positions as a small businessman, as a family rancher or dairy person to run for office. So we see it today. We see those who ran this last time, a very similar time.

But God bless Ronald Reagan. God bless all that he inspired us with.

And, Mr. Dreier, I want to thank you for leading us. This is one of the greatest times of my life, to be able to participate along with you and Mr. Lungren and Mr. Rohrabacher and others in remembering someone who I believe is one of the very greatest Americans ever to live, Ronald Reagan. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to General Vang Pao, the revered leader of the Hmong community residing in my Northern California congressional district and throughout the United States. I join that community in mourning his loss.

It is fitting for all Americans to pause and reflect on General Vang Pao's steadfast alliance with the United States during the Vietnam War. General Vang Pao commanded the Secret Army, a highly effective CIA- trained and supported force that fought against the Pathet Lao and People's Army of Vietnam. His tremendous courage and leadership aided American soldiers against aggression from the North Vietnamese. By fighting valiantly at our nation's side, he helped preserve and protect our way of life.

Our nation should not forget General Vang Pao's contributions to the American cause. We must also remember the Hmong who lost their lives or who were forced out of their homeland as they fought against the evils of communism. They sacrificed tremendously and deserve our enduring gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, for the last few years, national forests throughout California have been in the process of implementing the Forest Service's 2005 Travel Management Rule, TMR. As a result, many national forests have proposed to reduce off-highway vehicle, OHV, access by 90 percent or more, in addition to restricting use on so- called maintenance-level 3, ML-3, roads by classifying them as ``highways.''

Throughout the travel management process, recreational users and local governments provided substantive documentation and comments to address safety issues and other concerns with this flawed policy. Despite the best efforts of these elected officials and pro-access groups, their comments were all but ignored as the Forest Service moved forward with the TMR. For these reasons, and given the significant economic damage this rule will cause to recreational communities throughout California, I have introduced legislation, H.R. 242, to restrict funding to the Forest Service to continue implementing the TMR in the State of California until the agency develops a more balanced and workable OHV policy.

Repeated requests for the Forest Service to change course within its own authority have gone unanswered. This legislation will help ensure that this agency is being held accountable to the public it is required to serve instead of using their tax dollars to restrict access to their Federal lands. I would encourage you to support H.R. 242.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 25, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

I rise in strong support of this legislation to repeal ObamaCare.

Madam Speaker, Americans expect a new Congress to make job creation a priority and get our country back on the path of fiscal responsibility. Any serious plan to achieve these goals must begin with repeal of ObamaCare.

Madam Speaker, I represent 10 rural counties in northern California with chronically high unemployment rates. Last year I spoke with the owner of a restaurant chain based in Redding, California. He had originally planned to open 10 new locations this year, creating hundreds of new jobs. But because of the higher labor costs imposed by ObamaCare, he has decided not to expand at all.

At the other end of my district in California's Capay Valley, I have heard from a family-owned farm that delivers fresh produce to residents across the State. They are facing a staggering $1.7 million in costs from the new health care mandates. Add these to thousands of similar stories across the country, and it's clear that this law will have a devastating impact on workers and employers alike.

That's why the National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are urging Congress to vote ``yes'' on repeal. My friends on the other side claim that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. Yet no one truly believes that a new trillion-dollar government entitlement is the solution to a deficit crisis caused by reckless spending.

As 200 respected economists wrote just this week, the assertion that ObamaCare is ``paid for'' is ``based on omitted costs, budgetary gimmicks, shifted premiums from other entitlements, and unsustainable spending cuts and revenue increases.''

These economists conclude that ObamaCare could actually increase the deficit by more than $500 billion the first decade and by nearly $1.5 trillion the following decade.

Madam Speaker, Republicans are committed to advancing genuine reforms that reduce the cost of health care, but we must begin by doing away with this bad law that moves our health care system in the wrong direction.

Vote ``yes'' on repeal.

Mr. Chair, Title VII of this legislation provides for the extension of a number of tax provisions that expired at the end of 2009, or were set to expire at the end of 2010. I understand an effort was made to limit this title to what are known as the ``traditional'' tax extenders, with the general test being whether or not an expiring provision had been extended in the past. As a result of this decision, several provisions that expired for the first time at the end of 2009, and that had been included in previous drafts of tax extenders legislation, are not extended in this bill. One of these, the Section 45 production tax credit for electricity produced at open-loop biomass facilities placed in service before October 22, 2004, is important to a number of energy producers in the district I represent. Under current law, these facilities were permitted to claim the production tax credit for 5 years, ending in 2009. Previous tax extension proposals included a 2-year extension of this credit period. As a matter of simple fairness, I believe it is only right that these biomass producers should be able to claim the production tax credit for the same 10-year period afforded to the other renewable electricity producers covered under Section 45.

It is my understanding that no judgment was made on the policy merits of individual expiring tax provisions, and therefore no negative inference should be drawn against provisions that are not included in this legislation simply because they had not been extended in the past. I look forward to working with other members of the Ways and Means Committee in the 112th Congress to review these provisions and determine which ones are worthy of extension.

Madam Chairman, the bill that came to us from the Senate is far from perfect. I'm going to vote ``yes'' because if the scheduled $3.8 trillion tax increase takes effect in just 2 weeks, the consequences for our economy could be catastrophic. Even if we reversed this tax hike next year, families and small businesses would see higher taxes immediately on January 1.

According to the Tax Foundation, the average middle class family in my own northern California district would see their Federal income taxes more than double. People in my district are already struggling. Small businesses are barely hanging on. The unemployment rate is near 20 percent in several counties I represent. We simply cannot afford this enormous tax hit.

This has been a difficult decision for me. I'm outraged that the President and the Democratic leaders are demanding billions of dollars in unpaid-for spending on unemployment benefits and special interest giveaways as the price for stopping a massive tax increase.

Additionally, we should be making the current tax rate permanent. If businesses face the threat of another tax increase in 2 years, they will be reluctant to make investments that pay off in 5 or 10 years.

Madam Chairman, we have to provide long-term certainty for America's small businesses. I commend Mr. Camp for his dedication to protecting taxpayers and his hard work on this legislation. In the next Congress, I look forward to working with Chairman Camp to fix this bill's flaws. We must bring permanency to the Tax Code, and we must cut wasteful Federal spending, both to pay for the unemployment benefits and also to start bringing down our unsustainable Federal deficit.

Finally, I know from personal experience how much of a burden the death tax is for family businesses. My relatives on my mother's side of the family had to sell our own family's farm in North Dakota just to pay the death tax bill. That should not happen in America.

I urge the House to vote ``no'' on the Pomeroy death tax amendment and ``yes'' on the Senate bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with renewed hope that our Nation's trade agenda may soon move forward. This legislation includes an extension of trade preference programs, which is important, but is no substitute for passing our pending market-opening agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea. Mr. Speaker, if we hope to remain the key player in the global marketplace, we must do all we can to strengthen our ties to important democratic allies. Passage of these agreements will boost economic growth and create U.S. jobs by tearing down trade barriers and significantly increasing our exports into these markets, while at the same time enhancing our national security by bringing greater stability to Asia and South America.

Take the U.S.-Colombia agreement, for example. Colombia is the largest market for U.S. agricultural exports in South America, which makes it an important market for my agriculturally rich northern California district. Yet, we have seen our agriculture exports to Colombia decline by 65 percent over the last 2 years because our products still face tariffs and other barriers, while agriculture products from Argentina and Brazil, two major competitors for America's farmers and ranchers, received duty-free access to the Colombian market. The reason for the disparity is simple: Argentina and Brazil have implemented a trade agreement with Colombia, while our Nation has not. This trend, of U.S. producers losing out to foreign competitors, will only get worse as the European Union and Canada are moving towards implementing their own agreements with Colombia.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to recognize that continued inaction is suppressing job creation for Americans out of work and denying our producers new opportunities to export. Congress should pass our pending trade agreements without further delays.

I urge the Congress and my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

When the Democrats passed their massive health care overhaul, they didn't spend one cent to resolve a longstanding problem and ensure seniors have continued access to their physician. As a result, for the fourth time since Obamacare passed, we are forced to take emergency action to prevent physicians from having their Medicare payments slashed. This time, the looming cut is 25 percent. The brinkmanship where this Democrat Congress has walked physicians up to the cliff, only to back away at the last minute, is unacceptable.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are quick to remind us that they

offered to address Medicare physician payments last fall. This is true. They put a bill on the floor which had already failed to pass the Senate. This bill would have expanded our already record deficit by an astounding $210 billion, a crippling debt load on top of the $1 trillion health bill. Rather than responsibly manage the Medicare program, they chose instead to cut Medicare by one half trillion dollars to fund their government takeover of health care.

The good news is that today we are finally starting to address this problem in a bipartisan way. We're stopping these cuts not for 1 month or 2 months but for a full year. We're ensuring that physicians will be able to keep their doors open and that seniors will have continued access to their doctors. And we are doing this in a fiscally responsible manner without adding a dime to the deficit. We are doing it by taking aim at the irresponsible overspending that was created by the new health care law.

Let it be known on this day, in the people's House, that dismantling of Obamacare begins. Once the House passes this bill and the President signs it into law, we will have landed the first blow to the Democrats' massive health care overhaul. Today we begin by removing $19 billion from their risky $1 trillion experiment; a risky experiment that CBO predicts will force health insurance premiums for millions of families to increase by $2,100 in 2016 alone; a risky experiment that the Obama administration predicts could force 117 million Americans out of their health plans; a risky experiment that Medicare officials have repeatedly warned could jeopardize seniors' access to care; a risky experiment that Medicare officials predict will force millions of seniors out of their current Medicare and retiree health coverage; a risky experiment that increases taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars at a time when unemployment is nearly 10 percent.

A risky experiment that would spend an additional $1 trillion on health care when every respective economist tells us in order to improve our country's fiscal health, we must get control of health care spending.

My friends on the other side of the aisle repeatedly said a doctor's fix couldn't be paid for, that it shouldn't be paid for. Yet with bipartisan work, we have before us a fully offset bill that gives physicians 1 year of certainty while Congress works to reform physician payments in a fiscally responsible manner once and for all.

So here we are today, Mr. Speaker, pulling at the thread that will begin to unravel ObamaCare. Rest assured, America, we are taking $19 billion today, but we will continue to fight to get the rest next year.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking

member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

I thank my good friend from California for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1540, which I introduced to expose a growing crisis on public lands in my northern California congressional district and across the Nation. Mexican drug cartels are operating large-scale marijuana plantations on these lands, and the problem is getting worse by the day.

I recently joined law enforcement in a marijuana eradication raid in the forests of Shasta County, California, and saw firsthand the flourishing productivity of these foreign drug traffickers. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not taken sufficient action to dismantle them, and a comprehensive strategy is long overdue.

These foreign drug cartels pose a severe threat to public safety. They are heavily armed and have repeatedly fired at law enforcement officers to protect their illegal crops. They endanger the lives of outdoorsmen who too frequently have been confronted by violent criminals while simply trying to enjoy their public lands. They use the drug profits to fund a multitude of violent crimes and provoke the political unrest in Mexico that could threaten our national security. They cause grave and costly damage to our environment, leaving behind tons of trash and dangerous chemicals and costing taxpayers an estimated $11,000 to restore each acre of forest damaged by marijuana cultivation.

Mr. Speaker, our national forests should be a safe haven for families and recreation enthusiasts, not Mexican drug cartels. The American people should not have to fear for their safety while on a family camping trip. Taxpayers in our Nation should not have to bear the financial burden of the damage caused by drug traffickers. And the United States should never allow foreign cartels to reign free on the sovereign territory of our Nation. Let me say emphatically that these drug trafficking organizations must be pursued relentlessly, shut down permanently, and brought to justice unconditionally.

House Resolution 1540 spells out the crisis occurring on our public lands and affirms that the Federal Government must do more to confront this threat. It calls upon the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to work in conjunction with Federal and State agencies to develop a comprehensive and coordinated strategy to permanently dismantle the foreign drug trafficking organizations that have found a sanctuary on these lands. It is an important first step designed to both shine the light on this unacceptable menace and to demand that Federal law enforcement agencies take more aggressive, more persistent, and more effective action to shut them down for good.

I want to thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for their commitment to addressing this serious threat to public safety and to our national sovereignty. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, we are now in some of the worst economic times since the Great Depression. We have 9\1/2\ percent unemployment nationally. I have areas in my district that have double that amount. This is certainly the wrong time to be raising taxes. We need to stop this tax increase for all Americans--for the hardworking families who are struggling to make ends meet, and also for the small businesses that we are relying upon to create jobs and grow our economy. The bill before us today would result in a massive tax increase on small business owners, entrepreneurs, and job creators at the very time our country most desperately needs them to succeed and to hire more employees.

Mr. Speaker, this is no time for half measures. I urge the House to reject this flawed bill, and instead pass legislation to ensure that no American sees a tax increase on January 1.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, for the fifth time in the last year, Democrats' ability to properly manage the Medicare program is causing medical doctors to confront a looming massive cut in their Medicare reimbursement rates. In fact, when the cut went into effect in June, Medicare held physicians' payments for weeks, and it ultimately was forced to pay claims that cut physicians' rates by 21 percent, only to later send additional payments once the majority congressional Democrats decided to pass another patch. In practical terms, this meant for weeks doctors and other providers saw no or greatly reduced Medicare payments, but yet they still had to pay their rents, payrolls, and other overhead expenses.

Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable and irresponsible. As a result of the Democrats' failure to address this issue in a timely manner, tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted to reprocess physicians' claims and to send new checks to doctors all because the majority party could not finish its work on time.

Physician practices, like most small businesses, are hurt by this dereliction of duty. In a letter signed by 117 physician specialty and State medical societies, physicians detailed how many practices were forced to seek loans to make payroll expenses, to lay off staff or to cancel capital improvements and investments in electronic health records and other technology. Furthermore, when payments resumed, many physicians experienced long delays in receiving the retroactive adjustments. The physician group letter states, ``This is not the way to manage a program that seniors and the disabled rely on.''

The legislation before us provides for a 1-month postponement of the 23-percent cut; but in 1 month, the cuts return, this time even deeper, with payment cliffs expected to reach nearly 25 percent on January 1.

Madam Speaker, the Democrats' practice of missing deadlines, of withholding payments and reprocessing Medicare claims is no way to run the program. Furthermore, the Democrats' new health law cuts more than one half trillion dollars from Medicare but spends nothing on fixing the physician payment problem. It is one of the many reasons we should replace that flawed legislation with reform Americans can afford and that we should address a true long-term fix for our doctors and seniors. A Republican House will run this program differently.

We cannot miss deadlines. We must ensure doctors get paid on time for the services they provide. We cannot string them along not knowing from one month to the next what they will be getting paid by Medicare. As doctors are making decisions about whether or not to participate in Medicare next year, I want them to know that a Republican House will not leave them twisting in the wind as they have been this past year.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, that the legislation he speaks of, which they offered, had a $200 billion, non-paid-for bill on that. We have to begin living within our means, and through our legislation that we will be offering, we will be working to do that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, while I intend to support this bill and urge its passage, our work does not end here. We must find a long-term, stable and fiscally responsible solution to this problem.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is broad agreement that more needs to be done to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare. In fact, fraud is such an issue in Medicare, that the chief counsel to the HHS Inspector General, Lewis Morris, who testified before the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee this summer, said, ``A lot of career criminals and organized criminals have decided that building a Medicare fraud scam is far safer than dealing in crack or dealing in stolen cars, and it's far more lucrative. Right now, it's a good bet that you can take millions from us, and chances are you're not going to get caught.''

Mr. Speaker, it's clear more must be done to ensure that taxpayer dollars and seniors' premiums are being used wisely and efficiently. That is why Chairman Stark and I authored the legislation before us today, H.R. 6130, the Strengthening Medicare Anti-Fraud Measures Act.

When Mr. Morris testified at our subcommittee, he identified ways in which the current law could be improved. This legislation seeks to address those areas.

The bill makes two improvements to current law. First, it provides authority to exclude from Federal health programs executives whose companies have been convicted of fraud. The HHS Office of Inspector General would be allowed to exclude executives who were in positions of authority at the time the fraud was committed but subsequently left those positions.

Because the current statute is written in the present tense, it only punishes officers, managing employees, and owners at the exact time OIG levels punishment. Therefore, the individual who was the CEO of a company that engaged in criminal fraud can

evade Medicare penalties if he or she resigns before the company is convicted. The ex-CEO is then free to take on jobs with other health care entities and commit fraud all over again.

Under H.R. 6130, OIG could exclude the individuals who are responsible corporate officials at the time fraud was being committed, regardless of where they are employed later.

The second change this bill makes prevents companies that are convicted of fraud from hiding behind corporate shells and evading punishment. The bill does this by strengthening OIG's ability to impose penalties on corporations affiliated with convicted entities, or to use ``permissive exclusion'' authority to exclude them from program participation.

Currently, corporations that engage in health care fraud can resolve the criminal case through a guilty plea of a non-operating subsidiary. OIG's only remedy in such a case doesn't allow for any meaningful punishment against the company that's actually behind the Medicare fraud.

This legislation gives OIG the authority to exclude corporate parents or other affiliates from the Medicare program so that OIG will be better positioned to require significant changes at these companies beyond the remedies that are generally required in civil cases. This would provide a significant incentive to corporate parents to promote compliance and police the activities within their corporate families.

With these additional tools, OIG will be better able to stop those individuals who commit fraud but who have been able to stay one step ahead of law enforcement, saving taxpayer dollars and protecting seniors.

Medicare fraud is a crime that hurts senior citizens, law-abiding health care providers, and every American who pays taxes.

I thank Chairman Stark for working with me on this legislation and urge the support of my colleagues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6130, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge the House to defeat the previous question on the rule so we can vote to end the advanced Earned Income Tax Credit. This year, the Federal Government is running a $1.5 trillion deficit with 43 cents of every dollar we are spending being borrowed money.

The American people want us to get spending under control and the Republican YouCut initiative enables the American people to actually vote on specific spending cuts. This week YouCut participants have asked Congress to consider eliminating the advanced EITC. A Government Accountability Office report found that the advanced EITC is unpopular with eligible taxpayers and disproportionately subject to fraud, with 20 percent of the claimants lacking even a valid Social Security number.

Repealing the advance option would not affect low-income workers' eligibility for the EITC, but it would save taxpayers--not the $500 million that is less than the last budget, as my friend Washington just stated, but double that, more than double that, $1.1 billion by cutting down on fraud and abuse.

Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan measure. In fact, President Obama included it in his budget for this year. By taking up this commonsense proposal, we can cut more than a billion dollars' worth of fraud out of the Federal budget.

Let's take this opportunity to show the American people that Congress is finally serious about tackling the deficit. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It has now been almost a year and a half since the stimulus became law, and the American people continue to ask: Where are the jobs?

The American people have made it very clear that they want Congress to move in a new direction and focus on

creating stable, private sector jobs. Yet this majority continues to offer up more of the same.

The bill before us does nothing to help small businesses. It actually raises taxes on the worldwide American companies that have created millions of American jobs. Instead, virtually all of the money--some $30 billion in total--is directed to State and local governments.

There are a few provisions in this bill that have merit and that might be worth considering in a different context, but the basic premise of this bill is that we are going to take another $30 billion out of the private sector and use it to finance more government spending. That is not the path to economic recovery. It is the path to Greece.

The American people are tired of this same old tax-and-spend agenda. It is time for Members of this House to stand alongside the people we represent and say, ``No more.''

Let's vote down this bill and get to work on real private sector job creation.