Floor Statements

I thank my good friend from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, there is a long tradition of bipartisan support for extending these expiring tax relief provisions. I have personally been a strong supporter of the research and development tax credit, the 5- year depreciation schedule for farm equipment, and tax-free charitable contributions from individual retirement accounts. That is why I'm very disappointed that the majority party has chosen to bypass the Ways and Means Committee and bring a partisan extenders bill to the floor.

The bill before us raises taxes by nearly $25 billion at a time of 10 percent unemployment. As our economy is struggling to recover, this tax increase directly targets hard-hit sectors like real estate. It simply does not make sense that at the same time we are talking about the need to create jobs, this House is voting for the second time in as many weeks to raise taxes for next year.

H.R. 4213 also fails to extend the renewable energy credit for open- loop biomass plants. That's very important to my northern California district. But the President and the Speaker heading overseas to talk about how we need more renewable energy, I can't imagine why we would pull the plug on successful biomass producers. Mr. Speaker, if we had moved this bill through the committee process, we could have fixed this oversight, and I hope we can address it in conference.

I thank my good friend from Texas.

I rise today to discuss an issue I have been involved with for many years.

The landmark 1996 welfare reform included legislation I drafted that denies fugitive felons, along with probation and parole violators, Supplemental Security Income checks. GAO long recognized those SSI disability payments were at a high risk for fraud and abuse and encouraged Congress to act. Subsequent legislation expanded that 1996 ban to include certain Social Security checks. These provisions have been successful in saving millions of taxpayer dollars and have assisted law enforcement in making over 86,000 arrests and getting felons off the street, including a man wanted in Texas for 20 counts of child molestation.

Due to a recent court action, however, the Social Security Administration now is required to ban payments only to fugitive felons issued a warrant for trying to escape arrest rather than the broader group of fugitives with an outstanding felony arrest warrant. That action also compels SSA to restore benefits denied earlier, which will result in large retroactive payments of as much as $30,000 per individual. Not only will this cost taxpayers millions of dollars, but I'm deeply concerned that the effectiveness of the program we set up in 1996 could be greatly reduced.

The bill before us would immediately prevent checks for past-due Social Security and SSI benefits from being sent to currently incarcerated individuals, including checks that, without this action, could pay inmates tens of thousands of dollars while they are behind bars. Thus, the bill before us is a step in the right direction of addressing issues created by the court decision.

But there are more steps to take.

Following release of an October 2009 report from the SSA Inspector General that brought to light concerns with SSA's fugitive felon policy, I joined other Ways and Means members in requesting additional information on how SSA has used the good cause exemptions it is already allowed to make in certain cases. I believe the Social Security Administration should continue to suspend payments for those fugitives wanted based on the most heinous crimes while using the authority it already has to make good cause exemptions as appropriate.

As the legislation before us suggests, many of those made eligible for disability payments under the recent court action continue to break the law and can and do wind up in jail, costing taxpayers thousands of dollars.

I look forward to the Inspector General's response to our inquiry so that Congress can determine the best way forward to improve this important program and prevent the misuse of taxpayer dollars while protecting those who truly merit relief.

Let's stop these payments from going to prisoners today, and then keep working to ensure the right people are getting the right benefits and that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely to help only those truly in need.

I thank my friend and gentleman from Texas for all of the work he has done on this incredibly cruel tax.

Mr. Speaker, far too many families have faced the grim prospect of selling the family farm or business in order to pay the taxes that are due when a loved one dies. My own cousins had to sell their farm that had been in our family since the early 1900s just to pay the death tax. Mr. Speaker, this is simply wrong.

Although it is encouraging that Congress is attempting to provide a long-term certainty about death tax rates, the bill before us falls far short of a stable solution for agriculture and small business. The proposed exemption is simply not enough to protect family farmers, especially with the high cost of land in California and other heavily populated States.

Worse yet, H.R. 4154 fails to index the exemption amount for inflation, thus guaranteeing a repeat of the alternative minimum tax disaster with more and more families facing the death tax in future years. That's why leading pro-agricultural groups like the California Farm Bureau and National Cattlemen's Association do not support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this House has voted five times since 2001 to repeal the death tax entirely. In fact, no fewer than 65 members of the current Democrat majority have voted to fully repeal the death tax. It is time to end this unfair and cruel death tax once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, while I rise today in support of reversing the devastating Medicare cuts for physicians, I also rise in opposition to passing the buck to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, our government is facing a severe and unprecedented debt crisis. Yet, despite the President's pledge that health care legislation won't add one dime to the deficit, we're voting today on a health care bill that adds 2 trillion dimes to the debt, while piling trillions of dollars more onto Medicare's unfunded liabilities.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of these budget games. Two weeks ago, 219 Members of the Democratic majority voted to cut Medicare by $500 billion. We could have taken a fraction of those savings and kept them within Medicare to pay for this much-needed relief for physicians. It would have passed with a huge bipartisan vote. But, instead, the majority decided to raid Medicare and spend the money on a new government-run health program.

Republicans will be offering an alternative to ensure that doctors in Medicare are paid appropriately, and protect them from frivolous medical lawsuits, all without adding to the debt.

I urge the Speaker to stop the political games and allow the House to vote on our responsible solution. It's the right thing to do for our doctors, it's the right thing to do for our seniors, and it's the right thing to do for the future of our country.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for House Resolution 891, which honors the two marines and seven members of the Coast Guard who lost their lives during a rescue mission off the coast of California on October 29. We're grateful for their service and sacrifice and express our heartfelt condolences to all of their loved ones.

One of the fallen members of the Coast Guard was Che Barnes. Che grew up on a family farm in Capay Valley, northern California, located in my district that I represent. From an early age, Che was fascinated with planes. He worked hard to earn money to pay for flight lessons. He flew his first solo flight at the young age of 16. He joined the Coast Guard so that he could use his love of flying to rescue those stranded at sea.

It is tragic but fitting that he lost his life doing something he loved--flying in the Coast Guard and serving his Nation and fellow man. By all accounts, he was an excellent pilot and an even better person.

May God bless and comfort his family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say this job-killing bill would cause as many as 112 million Americans to lose their current health care insurance.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise not only on behalf of my constituents in northern California, but on behalf of all Americans. They have made

their opposition to government-run health care known. They have come out by the thousands to town halls, called our offices, and held peaceful rallies, but, unfortunately, congressional Democrats have refused to listen.

The legislation being considered today is one of the most damaging, destructive bills ever to come before this Chamber. A government takeover of health care won't bring down cost, but it will bring down quality of care. It will explode the national debt at the expense of future generations. It raises taxes by $750 billion and guarantees middle class tax increases down the road.

We all agree that we need health care reform, but we don't need to put the government in charge. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the free market, I believe in choice and competition, and I believe in freedom to choose your doctor and to get the treatments you need. America was built on these principles, and the Pelosi health care plan will take us in the opposite direction.

I urge every Member of the House to live up to our obligation, listen to the people and say ``no'' to government-run health care.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3619, Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Wally Herger

Bill Number: H.R. 3619

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: J.E. McAmis, Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 621 Country Drive, Chico, CA 95928

Description of Request: This request does not authorize or appropriate any Federal funds, but modifies current statute to authorize the Coast Guard to issue a certificate of documentation for operation in the coastwise trade for the vessel Maya, United States official number 1107319. The Maya is a flat deck barge that was built in Louisiana in 2001; however, it was briefly reflagged under the Mexican registry while it was transferred to that country for a project. The Maya was purchased in 2008 by J.E. McAmis, Inc., a California-based and U.S. citizen-owned company located in my congressional district. The barge is needed to carry equipment and supplies to and from heavy construction or dredging jobs generally located in the greater Pacific Northwest region. J.E. McAmis, Inc., worked vigorously for several years to locate a U.S. flagged and registered vessel prior to purchasing the Maya. These types of vessels, however, were unavailable because they were being used to support the Gulf Coast reconstruction after Hurricane Katrina. Additionally, efforts to build a barge were stymied by the credit crisis and banks' unwillingness to lend for such a project. Following the purchase vessel has undergone extensive work and repairs in Oregon, has been registered under the U.S. flag, and has received its certificate of inspection.

Mr. Speaker, we need the facts about this massive 2,000- page prescription for government-run health care. Financial experts at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other independent analyses have found that the Democrat plan for government-run health care will not only fail to reduce skyrocketing health care costs, it will actually increase them. Now with a vote looming on one of the most important bills to come through this Chamber in our Nation's history, I'm urging Speaker Pelosi to allow time for a proper analysis on how her bill will affect us in the long term instead of keeping Congress and the American people in the dark on the impact of government-run health care.

I thank my good friend from California (Mr. Dreier) for leading us in this very important discussion on trade.

Really, the surprise, I think, for myself--now, I represent a northern California district which is heavy in agriculture. It's one of the richest agricultural areas in the world. Also, it stretches from just north of Sacramento almost 300 miles to the Oregon border. The northern quarter of it has and along the sides it has some nine national forests, Mt. Shasta and Mt. Lassen. As I mentioned, it is one of the richest agricultural areas in the world. Within the United States, we grow a large percentage of specialty crops grown in the world--walnuts, almonds, prunes. We're the third largest rice-producing district in the Nation.

The fact is that our consumers in northern California and in all of California--and one out of every eight citizens in the United States lives in California--cannot consume all that we grow. We need to be able to export, so over half of all that we grow is exported to other nations. It helps with our imbalance of trade. As my friends and Mr. Brady know, it's not just agriculture. It's manufacturing as well.

Yes, please do.

That's exactly true.

I'd like to give examples of agriculture and then mention that these same challenges we have in agriculture we see in manufacturing as well. As a matter of fact, we as a nation are the No. 1 agricultural country in the world and exporting country, but it's not just agriculture. We're the No. 1 manufacturing and the No. 1 trading nation in the world.

Our big challenge, as it is with our agricultural goods, is that we basically have very low tariffs coming into the United States. Yet, when we look at our markets for agriculture and for other commodities, whatever they might be--getting into the markets of China, getting into the markets of Japan, Asia, South Korea, the EU--Europe--and in the South American countries--we see that their duties, import duties, of getting our rice or our prunes or our peaches or our walnuts into their countries are very high. So, therefore, it's very difficult for us, unless we can negotiate agreements--trade agreements--with these countries, to lower their tariffs in order to get our goods into their countries.

Yes.

Well, that's exactly right. Our tariffs are in the mid-20 percent. It is as much as that that we're paying into these countries.

So it almost defies reason to think that we are standing still in this Congress and that we actually have the three agreements that you mentioned which have already been negotiated. In Panama, they're about ready to rebuild the Panama Canal. The gentleman and myself have been down to these countries. We've seen this. These countries want these agreements. They've already negotiated bringing their tariffs down. They were negotiated in the last administration with these countries. All they need is a vote and an okay by the Congress.

Well, that's exactly the case.

Like everything else in life, no one stands still. You're either moving forward merely because your competitors are moving forward or you're moving behind.

In this case, not only are we not moving forward with just these three agreements, which could pass, but as Mr. Dreier from California mentioned, we see the Canadians have also negotiated an agreement with the Colombians and with the Panamanians where they will now get in ahead of us and will be able to make agreements. Their businesses will begin developing their relationships, and our businesses and our agriculture will be on the outside, looking in. We'll be behind. We'll still be paying these high tariffs where our competitors will not be. Therefore, we will lose literally millions of jobs that we could have been gaining and billions of dollars in trade that we could have been gaining at a time when our economy is down and at a time when we have some of the highest unemployment we've had in many decades here in the United States.

Well, that is exactly the case. It really is a win-win. It is virtually a win-win for all of our manufacturers, not just for agriculture, which I represent.

Again, we're falling behind. We're costing more jobs. We're not moving forward. All we're asking for is a vote on these three areas that we've already negotiated with Panama, that we've already negotiated with the Colombians, and that we've already negotiated with the South Koreans. All we're doing is waiting for a vote, up or down, and yet we have not been able to get that from this Congress.

Well, as my good friend from California is pointing out, in Colombia, I think most people picture Colombia as we pictured Colombia 10, 15, 20 years ago; the heart of the narco trade, everyone fearful to go out anyplace, whether it be in the cities or countryside or wherever it might be.

As a matter of fact, I remember my first trip to Colombia, I believe it was in the early 1990s. Literally wherever you traveled, we were in Cartagena and traveled around, and you had armed guards. You had an armed convoy that you traveled with.

I was there just this last year. You mentioned President Uribe and the incredible job he has done in the center of the narco traffic of South America, how they have got in and brought in those who used to be selling narcotics and used to be part of the military that was on the side of those in the drug trafficking, brought them in, trained them.

We have met, as I know you have, Mr. Dreier, and I am sure Mr. Brady, we have met with some of these young people who were part of the other side who have come in, who have been trained for jobs.

Again, as you met with them, and we met with them not only in Cartagena but also in Medellin, who would have thought about going to Medellin, where we did, and see how safe it is and met with these same young people, people in their mid-twenties, early twenties, but had spent basically their whole life on the other side, that were now productive and excited about the life in a democracy there and being able to live.

It is incredibly exciting. And it is even that much more of a reason, when they have fought and done so much to change their countryside, have risked their lives to turn their country around, that if there is anyone we should be an ally to, it should be the Colombians.

So not only are they helping us with their trade, but we are in a position there to aid them, to help them, to stand as an ally with them, as we should be with the Panamanians, as we should be with our allies the South Koreans, where, again, they are helping us at a time where economically we need these jobs in America.

This is when our Speaker Pelosi and the head of the Senate, Harry Reid, should be allowing these three already-negotiated trade agreements to come before the House and the Senate to be voted on so that we can be moving forward. They are bringing down their barriers, selling our agriculture, selling our manufactured goods, and putting literally millions of Americans to work.

I thank my friend.

That is so true. People don't realize. You know, we hear a fair amount, or some, about their trade agreement that has been negotiated but not voted on with Colombia and some with Panama, but as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) so rightly mentioned, the

big one, the biggest of all the trade agreements that we have ever negotiated is with the South Koreans.

As a matter of fact I just yesterday had eight South Koreans who represented businesses in South Korea that were in my office, and they were describing to me how they wanted us to be able to pass this agreement, be able to have a vote here in the House and the Senate on this very important agreement, that their concern was that they wanted to do business with our American companies. They wanted to do business with us and that the European Union, the EU, was already negotiating, was in the process of having an agreement with them.

If their agreement went through before ours did, they would lose their ability, obviously, if they could purchase more economically from the EU, that, economically, is what they would need to do. I was looking at some statistics, that just with South Korea, not only would we not pick up that extra business, those extra jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the United States, but we would actually lose business that we already have because we would lose part of this market to--it was estimated by staff on our Ways and Means Committee, we could see an 8 percent or $1.1 billion decline in our U.S. exports to South Korea.

Again, at a time when nationally we have 9.8 percent unemployment; in California, 12.2; and in my rural northern California district it's up around 14 percent unemployment, the last thing we want to do is be losing jobs. We need to be gaining these jobs is why it's so particularly paramount at this time that we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, as the backbone of our economy, small businesses create over 72 percent of all new jobs. It defies logic that House Democrats would pay for their government takeover of health care by actually raising taxes on these same businesses by $820 billion.

During a serious economic downturn, we should be pursuing policies that will create jobs and put us on the path to recovery. Instead, these tax hikes will cost an additional 5.5 million jobs.

History shows that the American economy is at its strongest when taxes are lower and small businesses are permitted to keep more of their money to invest and grow.

Mr. Speaker, higher taxes for government-run health care is a bad deal for the American people.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced a bill that would level the playing field for small businesses in my Northern California Congressional District competing for federal contracts. Under current law, federal contractors are required to give first priority to businesses that are HUB Zone certified, often times precluding worthy non-HUB Zone small businesses from having a fair opportunity to compete for federal contracts.

Numerous small businesses in my Northern California Congressional District have contacted me to explain that the HUB Zone program in its current form is preventing them from bidding on contracts with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) with a value over $100,000. For instance, an engineering firm in Redding, California, a company that had previously received USFS contracts, informed me that they are no longer able to bid for such contracts because they are not a HUB Zone certified company. They were told that USFS had changed its contracting policies based on a 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found that the USFS was not in compliance with the small business contracting rules established by the HUB Zone Act of 1997. The new requirements stipulated that only companies with HUB Zone certification could bid for these contracts.

The limitation to HUB Zone certified companies is not in the best interest of all areas. The unemployment rate in my Northern California District exceeds 14% in some areas, but because of the way the HUB Zone criteria were written, only small portions of Redding, California are classified as a HUB Zone. The criteria are based on the long term unemployment rate for an area along with its income levels, two variables that change frequently. Secondly, the maps that define the boundaries are haphazardly drawn, resulting in different sides of a street or even offices in a building having different HUB Zone statuses. Most important, the boundary lines are rarely updated and years may pass before the boundaries note a change in an area's economic situation.

The legislation that I have introduced would provide federal contracting officers with the flexibility to select from the various types of small business classifications. In doing so, HUB Zone classified small businesses would no longer have automatic first preference for federal small business contracts. This legislation would fix the current rigid preference system and give discretion to federal contracting officers to select small businesses based solely on the circumstances of the contract and quality of the bid.

The legislation would make only a one word change to the HUB Zone statute. It takes away the automatic preference given to the HUB Zone program for federal contracts going to small businesses, thereby leveling the playing field for other small businesses. With federal law mandating that 23% of federal contracts go to small businesses, it is important that federal policy promote competition to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars go to the most worthy contractor.

In short, my legislation would level the playing field for small businesses in a manner that is responsible to the taxpayers while continuing to provide assistance to small businesses in economically- disadvantaged areas. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation through Congress.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor today to commend the self- sacrificing act of a true American hero, Jack Tolbert, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross on Armed Forces Day in 1954. The extraordinary heroism of Mr. Tolbert was summarized thus when the medal was awarded:

The President of the United States of America, authorized

by act of Congress July 9, 1918, has awarded the

Distinguished Service Cross to Sergeant First Class Jack P.

Tolbert for extraordinary heroism in military operations

against an armed enemy:

Sergeant First Class Tolbert, Infantry, United States Army,

a Member of Company B, 65th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry

Division, distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in

action against an armed enemy of the United States near

Kumhwa, Korea, on 11 June 1953. He was one of two outpost

guards on the main line of resistance when the area came

under a heavy artillery and mortar bombardment. Observing a

hostile infantryman approaching the position, he shouted a

warning to the other Sentinel and to the guard at the Command

Post, enabling them to alert other elements of the imminent

attack. Seconds later the enemy soldier hurled a

fragmentation grenade into the bunker. Fully aware of the

danger involved, he stepped on the missile in an attempt to

dispose of it or lessen its explosive effect and received the

full impact of the explosion. Although critically wounded in

this display of valor, his prompt and unhesitating action

prevented serious injury to his comrade. Inspired by his

unflinching courage, the troops fought with great tenacity

and skill, inflicting numerous casualties and containing the

assault. Sergeant Tolbert's inspirational conduct and

consummate devotion to duty reflect the highest credit upon

himself and uphold the esteemed traditions of the military

service.

By order of Lt. General W. G. Wyman, Commanding General of

the Sixth Army.

Armed Forces Day, 1954.

Although the Redding chapter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart is named in his honor, Mr. Tolbert insists ``I'm not the hero type.'' In a 2009 interview with his hometown newspaper, Jack said, ``I was just a regular GI who spent a little time in the front line. I did my job and came home.'' With all due respect to Mr. Tolbert, no one shares his view. He may not have intended to be a hero, but a hero he is. And in recognition of his service, Shasta County has designated October 3 as ``Jack Tolbert Day.''

It is my honor to recognize Jack Tolbert's heroic service to our Nation.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3663, which very simply delays the quality accreditation requirements for pharmacies until no sooner than January 1, 2010. Without this legislation, accreditation requirements would go into effect tomorrow and many pharmacies would not be able to supply our Medicare beneficiaries with needed, durable medical equipment such as diabetes testing strips or canes.

I've heard from a number of independent pharmacies in my rural northern California district who have expressed serious concerns about the cost of complying with this new regulation. In many cases, these pharmacies are the only source of basic medical supplies for miles around and they are already strapped for cash because of reimbursement charges at the Federal and State level. Along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I have taken the position that State-regulated pharmacies should be completely exempted from the accreditation requirement. At a minimum, I believe all Members can support a short delay in the deadline.

Certain eligible professionals, such as physicians, are exempt from the requirement for DME suppliers to be accredited as compliant with quality standards. Although pharmacists themselves would be exempt for purposes of DME, it's the physical pharmacy that has the Medicare provider number, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, did not exempt pharmacies from the accreditation requirement.

Mr. Speaker, we must make it a priority to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, and we need strong quality standards for DME suppliers. There are simply too many cases of fly-by-night suppliers who have defrauded the Medicare program and the taxpayers by submitting millions of dollars in fake claims for power wheelchairs and other high-end DME.

However, most pharmacies do very little DME business, mostly involving small items like diabetes testing supplies. In addition, pharmacies are regulated at the State level, so those that engage in questionable activities can be identified and prosecuted. I'm confident that the quality accreditation program, with a reasonable exemption for pharmacies, will greatly reduce the $1 billion Medicare spent in 2007 in improper payments for medical equipment and supplies, and I will continue to support the program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good, commonsense bill with broad support from both Democrats and Republicans. This is an example of the way that health care policy should be handled in this Congress. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are now on day 5 of the Obama administration's gag order barring Medicare Advantage plans from telling their enrollees about the benefit cuts that will result from the Democrats' health care bill.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services actually overturned a Clinton-era ruling that said ``prohibiting such information would violate basic freedom of speech and other constitutional rights.''

Yesterday, Ways and Means Republicans formally requested a hearing to investigate the CMS gag rule.

Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to get to the bottom of this and find out if the administration is politicizing Federal agencies to stop Americans from learning the truth about his policies.