K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rice University on its 100th birthday. For over a century it has stood as one of the premier educational institutions in the world. Over the past 100 years, Rice University's name has come to be synonymous with excellence. The institution consistently ranks among the top 20 national universities in the U.S. News & World Report and holds many other marks of excellence. For example, in 2010 Rice University was ranked No. 1 worldwide in materials science research. In 2011, the Carnegie Foundation gave the university top classifications for ``very high research activity'' and ``comprehensive doctoral program''. While this is an amazing accomplishment, Rice's work is more than just a statistic--it has changed the world we live in. The research performed by the university has proved groundbreaking on several fronts, most notably the discovery of ``buckyballs.'' The discovery launched the field of Nanotechnology which has led directly to advances many fields, including medicine, technology, energy, defense, and transportation. Nanotechnology is already playing a powerful role in the lives of Americans, from its capacity to help find cures to deadly diseases to reducing the cost and extending the lifespan of consumer products like clothes and cars. Rice's School of Business, Architecture, Engineering, Social Sciences, Music, Humanities, Institute of Public Policy, and the Alliance of Technology and Entrepreneurship all hold similar national standing. Not only is Rice University a heavyweight contender in academic and research fields, the university also maintains a noteworthy athletic department. For 17 consecutive years, Rice has produced a NCAA conference championship team--another outstanding accomplishment. Again, congratulations to Rice University on its 100th birthday. Rice University's devoted faculty and student body have continually endeavored for excellence, and as a result Texans, Americans, and people all over our world have benefited.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an American hero from my district in Odessa, Texas, SSGT Marcus ``Mark'' Burleson of the 2nd/ EOD Company, The United States Marine Corps. On December 9, 2011, while serving in Afghanistan, SSGT Burleson was disarming a second IED, when a third one nearby exploded, almost taking his life. He lost one arm and the complete use of another. He lost one eye and vision in his other, and suffered numerous other severe injuries. In much pain, SSGT Burleson continues to recover with the help of his wife, Sara; his sons Marcus and Issac; and his daughter, Ariel. Families and heroes like these are the heart of Texas and the backbone of America. I ask that this poem, The Heart of Texas, penned in their honor by Albert Caswell, be placed in the Congressional Record. The Heart of Texas The. . . The Heart of Texas. . . Out in The West. . . In Texas, where men grow tall who can so pass that test! Men like Houston and Austin, who were but of our nation's very best! For from her Heart, now comes such a man no less, who so answered that most noble call when he was so asked! Who all for our freedom so faced death! That Call to Arms! That Call to Fight, as did this young man to do what was right! To so march off to war, so boldly there all in uniform! All out into the darkest of all nights! For from out of her heart so came, you Mark. . . one of her most magnificent of all sights! Because, In Texas they grow em tall! And Heroes too, somehow they just don't believe in small! All in this United States Marine, the one who so answered that most noble and proudly worn those shades of green! SSGT Burleson, all in you. . . and what we saw! Was but, The Heart of Texas who but gave his all! All in your most magnificent shades of green! Because, you Mark. . . so grew up to be one of the finest of all things that one could be! As you so grew up to be A United States Marine! Because, all in you. . . The Very Heart of Texas can so be seen! As the eyes of Texas are upon you Mark, and they so like what they have seen! All in your fine life of Strength In Honor, and what it all so means! While, against all odds. . . somehow almost like a God, you'd so convene! And not give up you United States Marine! For you had one of the toughest jobs of that war! Where, each new step, EOD. . . but so means death for sure! For only a man of such character and faith, could such fear so ignore! As there you were on that day, when your fine life almost when away! As an explosion took your arms, and eye and so ravaged your body all in every way! As it was all in that moment when you so had a choice. . . When, your heart as big as Texas so said listen to that inner voice! And don't give up, as all of your Brothers In Arms for you began to pray! As somehow, someway you Mark have so come back from that day! Oooh. . .rah. . . Jar Head, as your Heart of Texas has so led the way! To so help you to so leave behind, all of that pain and heartache that which comes to you on each day. . . To So Move On, To So March Off. . . To Our World To So Bless! Because, nothing is getting in this Marine's way! As You So Teach Us! As You So Beseech Us! As You So Reach Us! All in what your fine heart conveys! For you are More Than Just A Man Mark, you are one of Texas's very best! Teaching us all, what that word hero so means no less! They say everything is bigger in Texas, and maybe Hearts and Heroes too so yes! And if I ever have a son, I wish he could be like you who our world does bless! Because, after that morning when you awoke. . . As you so had a choice, as your fine heart to you so spoke! Give Up Or Give In, and make the Angels cry so then. . . For your wife and sons and daughter found the hope. . . All in Mark what your fine soul invoked. . . As you've put the T in Texas, all in your heart of strength and of such hope! Because, arms and legs Mark we all need. . . but somehow we can cope! But, up in Heaven you need not any of those. . . And that's where you are going one day to be with our Lord so close. . . Without them we can still survive! But, without a heart of faith. . . our souls will so surely die! Because, Marine your Strength In Honor and Courage brings tears to our eyes! Moments are all we have! To change the world! To go off with but our flags unfurled! To Make A Difference With It All! All but for The Greater Good, to so answer that most noble call! And families like your's SSGT Burleson, who so see their loved ones injured and fall! Are the ones who must now so watch and help them rebuild, all in such pain one and all! As out to all of these quiet heroes our hearts so call! As they give you the strength and encouragement. . . but to live but one day more, to give your all! For families like these, Heaven will one day call! As why we see on this very day, a smile upon our face. . . As we so watch you Mark, The Heart of Texas in every way!

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the passage of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act. A little over two years ago, as our Democratic colleagues were jamming this bill through Congress, their leadership thought they could appease some of the public's outrage by uttering that now famous phrase ``we have to pass the bill to know what's in it.'' Unfortunately for them, two years have passed and we now have seen what is in the bill--a top down, Washington-centric plan for the future of American's health services. Obamacare expanded and entrenched the worst parts of the American health system: it drives up premiums, reduces competition among insurers, restricts patient choice, further undermines the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid, and raises hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes. The law creates over a hundred and fifty new boards and offices, each with the authority to manage a piece of American's health care. The bill also gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services 1,700 new or enlarged powers to control American's access to and interaction with their health services. It even mandates that religious institutions violate the basic tenants of their faith by providing coverage for drugs and procedures that they find morally objectionable. What's more, the law taxes insurers, device manufacturers, and drug manufacturers, driving up the cost of these products. And then, in perhaps the greatest insult, Obamacare taxes employers for not providing insurance, it taxes people for not having insurance, and then it taxes people for having insurance that is too good. Mr. Speaker, from its inception, this law has been a failure because it is premised on the misguided idea that a small group of individuals can plan out orderly lives for the rest of us. There is not one person working at the Department of Health and Human Services who knows what it is like to be a family in Bronte, practice medicine in Brownwood, or run a hospital in Andrews. Yet, Obamacare hands the fate of the families, doctors, and hospitals across my district over to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and her staff. The ACA sets the ideas of this small cadre of Washington insiders ahead of the concerns of my constituents and their caregivers. It was crafted in secret and passed in the dead of night, and its most important details were left up to regulators who are unaccountable to voters. What was a 2,700 hundred page bill has spawned over 12,000 pages of regulations and more are being published every day. American's deserve a health care system that is designed with them at the heart of it. House Republicans are committed to enacting sensible reforms that build up the free-market. Solutions like buying insurance across state lines, allowing association health plans, and reforming our out of control tout system are common sense changes that will expand risk pools, lower premiums, and make insurance more affordable for millions of Americans. Our ideas can do this without the thousands of pages of rules and regulations, the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes, and the mandates imposed by Obamacare. I urge my colleagues join me in passing H.R. 6079 to repeal this divisive, intrusive, and loathsome healthcare law.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share my concerns over the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's recent regulatory guidance on the ``oilfield exception'' to the agency's ``Hours of Service'' requirements for drivers. Under the Administration's regulations, specially trained drivers of specially constructed vehicles used to service oil wells do not have to count waiting time at the well site toward their hours of service limit. The new regulatory guidance, however, provides that drivers of support vehicles, such as those used to transport materials and supplies, used directly in the delivery of oil and gas services do not qualify for that same exception. The administration issued this guidance without prior comment, making it effective immediately and requesting comments after the fact. Support drivers generally work under the exact same conditions as drivers of specially constructed vehicles, including the same periods of idleness while their vehicles are in use at the well site. Many drivers operate specially constructed vehicles one day and other support vehicles the next. The new guidance creates a different standard for these exact same drivers. When operating a support vehicle, the driver's waiting time counts toward his or her hours of service limit, but when operating a specially constructed vehicle, that idle time does not count. This double standard will create needless confusion among drivers and dispatchers who will now need to juggle competing rules for drivers depending on the vehicles they're driving on a particular day. In addition, while not applying the waiting time exception to drivers of support vehicles means that it will require more trucks and drivers to be dispatched while others are out of service, increasing truck traffic, especially on rural roads. Many of our rural roads, particularly in the most active producing areas such as the Marcellus and the Bakken shale, are already struggling under the burden of heavy truck traffic. Adding more heavy vehicles to the roads will not enhance safety no matter how rested the drivers might otherwise be. When I dealt with this issue with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in 2006, I thought we had reached an understanding of the industry's oilfield equipment vehicle operations and safety protocols. Unfortunately, the agency's new interpretation undoes this careful compromise. It is important for the administration to document why it is pursuing this new interpretation and provide that data--if it actually has any-- that it is using to support this change. I believe that, at a minimum, the agency should not put this revised guidance into effect until after the public has had a chance to comment and for the agency to consider those comments. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration should not implement the new administrative interpretation until it provides adequate and complete justification for the changes that it's seeking to make. Mr. Chairman, I call this regulatory overreach to the attention of the requisite committee so that, while they're doing their oversight of this agency, they can review this interpretation and perhaps add their influence to undoing this overreach. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Lankford

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am the chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management that does have oversight of the CFTC. I expected the arguments for this particular amendment to go a different direction, but it does occur to me that we are chastised, those of us on authorizing committees, Mr. Chairman, during the appropriations process, that trying to write policy in the approps bills is not allowed. Well, this is appropriating in an authorizing bill. It makes no sense whatsoever. The Subcommittee on Agriculture on the Appropriations Committee goes through these spending requests in detail, over and over, in a few weeks of committee work, and then they will come to their conclusion. They have, in fact, come to their conclusion, and they will bring this bill forward next week. It's a bit presumptuous to come in here to ask this body to spend another $128 million on an agency that the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture has already spent plenty of time deciding how much that agency needs to spend over the coming year. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support for the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act of 2012 because I personally know the importance of the oil and gas industry to the future of America. I am fortunate to call West Texas home. Growing up in the Permian Basin has given me a better perspective on what it means to produce the raw resources that our Nation needs to power its industry. It is a perspective that has come from working on a drilling rig in Fort Stockton, Texas, drilling miles and miles below the surface of the Earth. It's this pursuit of oil and gas miles below our feet that is reinvigorating pockets of the American economy from Texas to Pennsylvania to North Dakota. The work is hard, but the rewards can be great. Not just for the producers, but also for the roughnecks, the thousands of small and large firms that support the drilling activity, and the communities that host them. Our Nation relies and prospers, Mr. Chairman, on affordable, abundant energy like oil and gas. This bill will ensure that not only do we have affordable energy, but that Americans are put back to work producing it. The oil and gas industry on private lands is thriving in spite of this administration's attempt to slowly suffocate it. Today's legislation would reverse the glacial pace of permitting and the pointless regulations designed solely to slow down production on Federal lands. Mr. Chairman, this bill will do the things that the President's stimulus act has failed to do. It will drive investment into American businesses and will put Americans back to work, just like the oil and gas industry has been doing in District 11 for over 80 years.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I appreciate the gentleman from Washington yielding me 2 minutes. I strongly urge opposition to this amendment with some heavy heart because some of the things that my good colleague has said may be accurate; much of it is inflammatory and not accurate. But nevertheless, I don't want to be seen as an apologist for Pakistan. But by the same token, we have trimmed the amount of money subject to this authorization and to this amendment by half. We have strengthened the controls around that money to require Pakistan to certify to us, to Secretary Panetta, that, in fact, this money is being spent in the fight against counterterrorism. We will have additional amendments on floor this afternoon that don't have any opposition, which will further strengthen that certification process. And by restricting all funds, under the DOD position, simply plays into the bad guys' hands in Pakistan. It will give them no incentives in which to work with us and it will further their strength and resolve to close the cross-border, overland passage of U.S. military goods to assist us with the fight in Afghanistan. While my good colleague has much greater experience with some of those folks in that part of the world than I do, nevertheless, I stand in opposition to his amendment. It is a meat cleaver when we ought to be going at it the way we've done it--by trimming the money back, putting restrictions on that money that will force the Pakistanis in order to get it. And, by the way, they have not gotten money from DOD since June of 2010. So while the comments that he's made might apply to all funding for the State Department and everything else, it only applies to Department of Defense money. We've not given them money since June of 2010. We have adequate protections in the bill this time and will strengthen those protections later on in the debate in the votes this afternoon. I stand in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding me the time. I stand in opposition to this amendment. My colleague stated it very well earlier. This says just get out now. My colleagues across the aisle in support of this amendment have continued to use the word ``responsible'' over and over, and there is nothing responsible about abandoning the efforts in Afghanistan today without proper conditions on the ground. The President has a plan in place. Some of us may have had differing ideas with him, but he put a plan in place that says our combat troops will be out of there by 2014 contingent with conditions on the ground. The Afghan people are responsible for their own security, and we're trying to help them get to that place with the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, and the Afghan local army. Those efforts are going on across the provinces of Afghanistan as we speak, and they're getting into the lead to take care of their security. But abandoning of Afghanistan today would put at risk 27 million Afghanis who are counting on us to get this right, counting on us to put them in a position to be able to defend themselves when we do leave in 2014. So getting out now, Mr. Chairman, is irresponsible rather than responsible. Now, I understand all of us are tired. All of us are weary. None of us like to go to those funerals. I go to the funerals of the young men and women who have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I stand with those moms and dads and husbands and wives on the worst days of their life. I understand, it's grinding grief that's associated with it. But there's a pride also attached to it that their loved one gave their life for something positive, for something good, so that 27 million Afghanis could create a government that would allow them to rule themselves and not have the thugs and the Taliban do what they did in the mid-1990s: come in and slaughter all of the thoughtful people, all the teachers, all the folks who would lead, in order to subjugate their people in ways that are just horrendous. They will do that again to anyone who has helped us over this last 10-year period. So we do have a responsibility there. The responsibility is to get out when the conditions on the ground say it's time to get out. NATO is meeting this weekend in Chicago to determine ongoing conditions, what's going to be done with respect to their commitments, and this amendment would undermine all of those efforts going on there. So I stand in opposition to this amendment and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Congressional Caucus on CPA and Accountants, I rise today to congratulate the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), on reaching the historic milestone of 125 years of service to its members and the public. Founded in 1887, the AICPA has grown into an organization with over 377,000 members in 128 countries. As the ten CPAs and accountants in Congress, we each have deep personal connections to the accounting profession and profound respect for the work the AICPA does to strengthen it. As a professional organization, the AICPA supports and educates its members, but it also promotes financial literacy and education for the general public as well. The accounting profession is about trust: trust between a CPA and a client, and trust between an auditor and the public. It is these relationships, carefully tended, that are the foundation of our economy. For 125 years, the AICPA has been hard at work building this trust by promoting the highest standards of independence, objectivity, competence, and ethics for the profession. The AICPA's members practice in specialties across the accounting spectrum--from private practice to business and industry to education to government to consulting--but all are supported by the resources, information, and leadership provided by the Institute. The AICPA serves its members in many activities including standards, certification, peer review, education, thought leadership, and promoting the public image and professionalism of CPAs. For over a century, the AICPA has stood as a custodian of the accounting community, protecting the integrity of the profession and promoting the competence of its members. Today, Americans are served by a cadre of well trained, objective CPAs whose analysis and advice serves as the foundation for millions of financial and business decisions each day. These professionals are the living legacy of the AICPA's 125 years of service. Today, as a member of AICPA, I join with my fellow CPAs and accountants to congratulate the staff, leadership, and members of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants on their 125th Anniversary. Our nation is a better, stronger nation because of your work.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to William F. (Bill) Ezzell, one of America's leading Certified Public Accountants on his retirement from Deloitte, LLP. As a member and former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the America Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), Bill has been an industry leader and pace setter for the accounting profession. His numerous accomplishments include the establishment of a major project within the AICPA foundation to increase the number of PhDs teaching auditing and tax in university accounting programs. He also played an integral role in the implementation of key legislation including Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as well as the associated regulations. Bill has been a frequent speaker and panelist at corporate governance forums and accounting conferences and has an expertise in emerging issues of interest to audit committees, corporate management, and auditors. Bill graduated from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill with a B.S. degree in Business Administration and Accounting and had been with Deloitte 38 years. He has been a Commissioner on the Pathways Commission on the Future of Accounting Education, a recipient of the AICPA Gold Medal for Distinguished Service, and is a former Chairman of the AICPA Legislative Task Force. Mr. Speaker, the Accounting Profession will miss Bill Ezzell's leadership and the Congress will miss the expertise he has provided through the years. I know my colleagues join me in thanking my good friend Bill for his years of service to the accounting profession and the guidance he has given us over the years. We wish him well on a well-earned retirement and hope he will be successful in his future endeavors.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3336, the Small Business Credit Availability Act. Today's bill makes several narrow changes to the law which will further clarify exactly how Congress intended for the CFTC to implement the new swap dealer registration requirements under Dodd-Frank. In the law, Congress authorized the CFTC to exclude small financial institutions that provide swaps in connection with loans from the heavy regulations as swap dealers. We did so because we understood the importance of allowing these institutions the ability to package together loans and hedging instruments. Offering loans in this way allows small financial institutions to offset some of their underlying risk and offer lower loan rates to local farmers, ranchers, and small businesses. These lower loan rates mean the businesses that sustain our rural communities will have greater access to the capital they need to continue to invest in their growing businesses. With the Entity Definitions recently released by the CTFC--although not yet published in the Federal Reserve--the CFTC took steps towards resolving the issues addressed by H.R. 3336. However, it left some undone. Unfortunately, the current rule is silent on the commodity swaps for agricultural businesses, is unnecessarily restrictive of farm credit system institutions, and applies arbitrary time restrictions on excluded swaps. H.R. 3336 would strengthen the rule passed by the CTFC by expanding the scope of the exemption to protect the way rural America has long done business. The farms, ranches, and small businesses in the district I represent have never been and never will be a part of the systemic failure of our financial system. Neither they nor the small institutions that serve them ought to be considered as a threat. Today's legislation is carefully tailored to ensure that we do not shackle small businesses and family farms with rules that ought to apply and are meant to police the largest Wall Street banks. I want to thank Ms. Hartzler for the work that she's done on shepherding this bill through committee. She has been a staunch advocate for protecting small businesses from the overreach of Dodd- Frank. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Boswell, my counterpart on the General Farm Committees and Risk Management Subcommittee; our chairman, Mr. Lucas; and our ranking member, Mr. Peterson, for their continued efforts at comity and bipartisanship on the House Agriculture Committee. Like many bills moved through our committee this year, H.R. 3336 passed with unanimous bipartisan support. This is a testament to the leadership on both sides of the aisle and to the carefully crafted bill that Ms. Hartzler introduced. With those remarks, Madam Speaker, I urge swift adoption of the Small Business Credit Availability Act.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will certainly not attempt the eloquence of all the previous speakers. I just simply want to say thanks to John Sullivan. He is the only Parliamentarian that I've served under. His service as Parliamentarian began just before I got here in January of '05. So it's been my privilege to serve with John. He has been even-handed throughout, from my perspective, serving both 4 years in the minority and now back in the majority. You can't tell from John's conduct which side you belong to because he really does call them even-handedly. When you love the institution the way I do and the way other Members do, it's easy to recognize that love of institution. There is no one that I know of whose love for this institution is evidenced greater than what is demonstrated by John Sullivan. The precedents of the House, all of the things that are a part of this institution that make it one of the most valuable legacies of our Founding Fathers, John has upheld those traditions and those precedents in a very admirable way. So, John, thank you for the many chapters of your life that you have spent in service to the House of Representatives. Thank you for that. And Godspeed in the many chapters of your life to follow this one. This institution is better for your long service. I'm a better Member of Congress for your service. Thank you, John.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 2779. The interaffiliate swaps, those swaps occurring between entities within a single corporate structure, are an important tool for companies and to manage their risk. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee and the chair of the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee, I want to commend Mr. Stivers and Ms. Fudge for putting together a commonsense bill that will offer our businesses and agriculture firms certainty about a small but important aspect of the overall Dodd-Frank rulemaking. Centralizing a large organization's risk mitigation efforts can yield substantial economic benefits and reduce a firm's overall credit risk. In addition to creating operating savings through economies of scale, these companies can also reduce the number of external-facing transactions altogether. By looking at a firm's entire risk portfolio, it's possible to find places where risks overlap and offset one another, reducing the need for entering the market. Fewer swaps mean less money tied up in margin, clearing, and execution and more money being spent on hiring Americans, buying supplies, and funding innovation. Unfortunately, ambiguity in the Dodd-Frank law could undo this innovative risk management strategy. If interaffiliate swaps are treated the same as other swaps, end users could wind up posting margin for the same swap twice: once for the public trade and once for the internal trade that assigns the swap to the appropriate business unit. Needless to say, posting margin for the same transaction twice means that companies are likely to abandon the use of interaffiliate swaps altogether and, with it, the efficiencies that made the strategy attractive in the first place, thereby driving up their business costs and overall risks. It's important to note that this legislation simply clarifies the intent of Congress. It does not repeal any of the market protections in Dodd-Frank. These internal swaps do not create risk and do not pose a systemic threat to financial markets. Instead, it protects an important tool American companies use to unlock the value of their unlimited resources. I want to thank both Mr. Stivers and Ms. Fudge for bringing forward this legislation, and Chairman Lucas and Chairman Bachus for shepherding it through both committees in a timely fashion.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you to Mr. Garrett of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 2682, the Business Risk Mitigation and Stabilization Act. As chairman of the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee, I am pleased to see this bill brought to the floor today. The Business Risk Mitigation and Stabilization Act will offer legislative clarification for one of the most important points that underlies Dodd-Frank, which is that nonfinancial end users should not be required to post margin. In hearings and letters, Congress could not have been clearer in its intent to exempt nonfinancial end users from being required to post margins for their risk mitigation transactions. Yet, despite our clear intent, regulators have proposed rules that could result in margin requirements for these end users. Every dollar that a business has tied up in a margin account is a dollar it cannot spend on job creation or other productive business purposes. The Chamber of Commerce has recently estimated the costs of requiring these end users to post margins could reach billions of dollars and cost over 100,000 jobs, all over the clear and concise objections of Congress. This legislation simply affirms the original position of Congress that nonfinancial end users do not need to tie up scarce resources to participate in the swaps markets. Much like H.R. 2779, which we debated earlier, the Business Risk Mitigation and Stabilization Act would not undermine the established goals of Dodd-Frank. Nonfinancial end users represent less than 10 percent of the swaps market and have never posed a systemic risk to the broader financial markets. As we in Congress continue to advance legislation to put America back to work, we should prevent unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses. I am pleased to support H.R. 2682 because it will do just that. I want to thank Mr. Grimm, Mr. Peters, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Owens for sponsoring this important legislation. I am pleased to note that it is a bipartisan effort and is supported overwhelmingly by both committees. I also want to thank my chairman, Mr. Lucas, and Chairman Bachus, for their work in clarifying Congress' intent for regulators with respect to end users. This legislation will protect jobs and businesses struggling to meet the multitude of mandates coming out of Washington.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my support for the efforts my colleagues have made this week to improve the regulatory environment for growing small businesses across our nation. This is important work that should continue without delay. As we move forward though, there is a policy I am opposed to in the underlying bill that I hope can be addressed either in the Senate or in Conference. Specifically, I am concerned that in this legislation, Congress sets a perilous precedent by establishing an accounting standard through legislation. While I am not opposed to this bill today, in part because I appreciate the work that has already been done to address this issue, there is still more to do to fully correct the problem I see. As a CPA and the former Chairman of the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy, I am concerned about the encroachment this bill makes on the independence of the Financial Accounting Standards Board or FASB. FASB is an independent, private sector organization which establishes the standards of fmancial accounting that govern the preparation of financial reports by nongovernmental entities. The law has long recognized the need for an independent body, unencumbered by political or business affiliations, to arbitrate the complex accounting questions that arise in our modern economy. FASB functions as a rule maker that sits above the fray, so that public companies, investors, analysts, and government officials can all rely on the integrity and accuracy of fmancial statements. FASB's independence from businesses and governments alike is central to their ability to balance the competing interests of all stakeholders and generate standards that everyone can have confidence in. Today's bill, H.R. 3606, takes a dangerous step away from this autonomy and towards a FASB that is held captive by the political and parochial interests of Congress. This legislation will interpose the views of Congress between FASB and the individuals and companies who rely on FASB's independence and judgment. While I am strongly in favor of lifting regulatory burdens on our nations businesses, small and large alike, Congress should not direct when particular accounting standards are applicable to emerging growth companies. Replacing the careful, inclusive, and deliberative judgments of FASB with the inexpert opinions of Congress could result in a standard that does not meet the competing needs of all market participants. Investors and analysts rely on the information in financial reports to fairly evaluate the firms they seek to invest in; FASB is the appropriate body to balance their need for information against the concerns of small business owners with the cost of complying with reporting requirements. I am encouraged that the Chairman, Ranking Member, and sponsor of this legislation have already met with representatives from accounting profession and made good faith efforts to address my concerns. However, there is still work to be done to improve this bill. I hope that as similar legislation is considered in the Senate and if the two houses meet in a conference committee, my colleagues will take a close look at the consequences of this policy and take another step back from this slippery slope. While many might argue that Congress ought to be able to set accounting standards, accountants are universally opposed to this idea. For those of us who spend our lives dealing with Congress's handiwork in the tax code, we see a grim glimpse of the future if Congress were to stand in for the independent accounting standards bodies. As I often tell my constituents, if you like the tax code, you will love financial statements when Congress writes the accounting rules. The value of good and effective accounting standards cannot be overstated; they are the yardstick of the marketplace. Good standards are essential to a well functioning economy because they provide a consistent framework for the meaningful evaluation of widely disparate entities. Without them, it is impossible to hold an accurate understanding of the fmancial position of a firm, an industry, or the wider economy. Almost 80 years ago, Congress had the wisdom to establish an independent body to develop those standards so that accounting was never influenced by politics. Today, as more Americans than ever are active participants in financial markets, the need for a trusted, independent arbiter of public accounting standards has never been more important. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this legislation and to further strengthen the independent process for writing financial accounting standards in the future.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me to join in; and although I'm not a part of the freshman class, I hope they won't toss me out of the Chamber as a result of that indiscretion. I wanted to walk us through kind of the process by which TransCanada has gone through trying to laboriously apply and comply with all of the rules, regulations, and hoops that anybody who tries to do a project of this scope has to go through. They began in September of 2008 when they filed their application for a permit to build this pipeline. As has been mentioned, the State Department would not be involved in this at all except for the fact that this pipeline crosses an international border. If this were just within the United States, the State Department and the President would be out of the loop in this instance. But because this is an international problem, then the State Department gets a whack at this deal. In April 2010, the State Department issued their draft Environmental Impact Study. Then, a couple of months later, in June of 2010, EPA weighed in with the results of their technical review and said that the draft Environmental Impact Study was deficient and didn't provide the scope and the detail, if necessary, for decision-makers to make their mind up. Bureaucratic nonsense for stopping things from going forward, so that it allows one group of folks in the administration to brag on how hard we're pushing on this issue, while all the time they've got a backstop at the EPA that knows that they're not going to move anything forward. And then October 2010, State Department issued a supplemental draft Environmental Impact Study. Only in America can you come up with these kinds of titles to simply laying a pipeline across this country. Again the EPA weighed in and said, no, no, no, this supplemental one is deficient, and you've got to continue to give us information; although, when asked a little later on that month, Secretary of State Clinton was asked at a press conference, kind of where are we with respect to the pipeline approval process, she commented that we're inclined to say ``yes'' to the pipeline. And then in April 2011, the EPA again said in a filing that the supplemental draft Environmental Impact Study was deficient. Finally, by August of 2011, the State Department issued its final Environmental Impact Study, allowing for a 30-day public comment and a 90-day agency comment. And of course it was during this agency comment period that the State Department decided that a new route was necessary, that the original route that was planned and the alternatives going across the Ogallala, the 13 alternatives that were assessed, that this one really was the best, that somehow a new route was necessary and that gave rise to the charade that we saw played out where the President decided he was going to wait until after the election, and then Congress weighed in and said, no, you need to make that decision sooner. The State Department's decision to go or no go on it has to be based on a finding that the pipeline is not in our national interest. Transporting this oil of almost 1.4 million barrels of crude and bitunium across this country to U.S. refineries would have to not be in the United States' best interest. And, in fact, that's what the State Department found. After we passed the law requiring the President to make a decision, the State Department suddenly decided that building this pipeline was no longer in the national interest and allowed the President then to say what he said. The President's wrongheadedness on this issue couldn't be more self-evident on its face. I want to talk real quickly about the safety issue. You hear a lot about that. I come from west Texas--Midland, Odessa, San Angelo. There are thousands and thousands of miles of pipeline crisscrossing my part of the State. In fact, there are three oil pipelines that run through the front yards of the people who live across the street from me. And we've lived there for almost 15 years now, not a bit of trouble with the pipelines. And they're inspected all the time, both inside and out and observed from the air, and this type of stuff. So pipeline safety is not an issue. Drilling safety, by the way, I just wanted to pitch this in real quickly. When I left my home yesterday morning at 5:45 to come here, as I was closing the garage door, I could see the lights on the crown of a drilling rig less than a half mile from my house that's in operation. It's been in operation for about 4 or 5 months now drilling wells that are actually that close to my house, and it's being drilled inside the city limits of Midland, Texas. So when we talk about not in my backyard or all of the other kinds of reasons why people don't want oil and gas production around them, I come from a part of the State where it's a badge of honor, and, in fact, it's helpful on the 20th of the month each month when the royalty checks show up. So this industry has a great record of being able to operate soundly not only in the drilling and exploration phases, but also in the production and transportation issues across. Let me give you one quick thing, and I'll close. The Wall Street Journal, on the 19th, had made a pretty good statement. It said: The central conflict of the Obama Presidency has been between the jobs and growth crisis he inherited and the President's hell-for-leather pursuit of his larger social policy ambitions. The tragedy is that the economic recovery has been so lackluster because the second impulse keeps winning. Yesterday came proof positive with the White House's repudiation of the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada's $7 billion shovel-ready project that will support tens of thousands of jobs if only it could get the requisite U.S. permits. Those jobs, apparently, can wait. And a couple of paragraphs later, very succinctly, said, ``This is, to put it politely, a crock.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Richland Springs Coyotes on an outstanding 2011 football season. On December 9, 2011, the Coyotes won the Class A, 6-man Division II State Championship with a dominant 76-28 performance over the Motley County Matadors. The victory capped a perfect season, where 14 of the Coyotes' opponents were subjected to the 45-point mercy rule--the Matadors were no exception. This stellar performance earned the Coyotes their second consecutive state championship. I want to congratulate the team on their work ethic--domination on the grid-iron does not come easy. As well as the young men on the team, I want to recognize Coach Jerry Burkhart for putting together a football program of unparalleled success. In the 124 games played under his leadership, you can count all the losses on one hand! Incredible. I encourage the team and the coaches to enjoy this moment to the utmost. It is my honor to represent Richland Springs and their outstanding football program. Again, I congratulate the Coyotes on a perfect season and a state championship.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Midland Christian School Mustangs on a tremendous football season. On December 3, 2011, the Mustangs defeated the Tomball Concordia Lutheran Crusaders to win the TAPPS Division II State Championship. The Mustangs finish the season with a 12-2 record, winning 12 consecutive games to finish the season and capture the state championship. I want to congratulate the team on their dedication and hard work. This remarkable season was capped by a thrilling state championship that was a fight to the finish. Throughout the ups and downs of this year, the Mustangs persevered and clung together as a unit, ultimately winning state. I applaud their dedication and hard work. Coach Greg McClendon, as well as the young men on the team, deserves recognition for the accomplishment. This victory marks the fifth 11-man state championship for the Mustangs--an outstanding accomplishment. I encourage them to enjoy this achievement to the utmost. It is my honor to represent the Midland Christian School Mustangs and their state championship football team. Again, I congratulate the Mustangs on an outstanding season.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, we've had an awful lot of conversation this afternoon. It twists on the idea that somehow the 100 Members of the Senate are so much smarter and so much brighter and so much more intelligent than the 435 Members of the House of Representatives. Our colleagues from the other side of the aisle would ask us to simply accede to whatever the Senate does as ludicrous as it is. A 2- month extension is nonsense. It has no commonsense value whatsoever. Everyone in this Chamber knows that. Yet speaker after speaker says that we need to just accede to the wisdom of the Senate. The wisdom of the Senate is represented by a 2-month extension that is not paid for by anything that makes the remotest amount of sense. We can fix this this coming week, and we think we should. Have them appoint their conferees, Mr. Speaker, so we can fix this for the American people. Then all this doom and gloom that's being spouted out down here goes away with a 1-year extension of unemployment, with a 1- year extension of the payroll tax, and with a 2-year extension for our doctors.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman. This is really hard to listen to in the sense that we are being asked to simply accede to the wisdom of the Senate. The wisdom of the Senate would say that long-range planning is 2 months. The wisdom of the Senate would say let's pay for 2 months' worth of these fixes by a permanent increase in mortgage insurance. That's unwise. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to abdicate my responsibility to vote what I believe is in the best interest of the county and the best policy simply because it's Christmas. Now, we've got 2 weeks to work this out. The House has already passed an extensive bill that fixes and addresses these issues across a broad spectrum of the fixes. And to have the other side over and over say it's really the wisdom of the Senate that you should accede to, it's really the wisdom of the Senate, look what the Senate did, Mr. Speaker. It's irresponsible on every level to simply say 2 months is somehow going to fix these problems, that we can avoid dealing with the issue for another 2 months and then that's wise? I would argue that my colleagues on the other side are wrongheaded in this regard. We have a bill that fixes this for 2 years, 1 year on the unemployment and taxes. We've got the pay-fors in place. The conferees can come together and get this worked out over the next week and a half that we've got before these things go into effect and bad things happen. To ask us to yield to the Senate, to accede to the Senate's wisdom is wrongheaded on every level, and I refuse to do that, Mr. Speaker, and would argue that the House-passed bill that we passed last week should be the base bill on which we go to conference on and to work out these differences.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Mason Punchers football team on an outstanding 2011 season. Yesterday, the Punchers won the Class 1A, Division I Texas state championship and ended their season with a perfect record, 15-0. I want to congratulate the team on their dedication and hard work. It takes determination and focus to win a state championship, and the focus must be all the greater to do it on top of a perfect season. I applaud the perseverance of the team. Coach Kade Burns, as well as all the young men on this team, deserves recognition for the accomplishment. The 15-0 season was all the greater considering this was Coach Burns' first season as head coach at Mason. I know that many years from now, these young men from Mason will look back on this day with fond memories. I encourage them to enjoy this achievement to the utmost, as it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. It is my honor to represent the student and families Mason and their state championship football team. Again, I congratulate the Mason Punchers on a perfect season and a state championship!

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, it's already been said tonight that 15 years ago we came within a chigger's whisker of passing a balanced budget amendment and sending it to the States. Imagine how different today's conversations would be had the folks in charge then done that. We'd still be fussing and fighting about what ought to be done, but the argument would be, how do we solve today's problems using today's resources? Instead, we've stacked up another $9 trillion of future generations of Americans' resources in our quest to solve these problems. Well, think about what 2026 will look like, 15 years from now. The folks in charge then will be able to take out the projections that we have in place today and compare those to what is actually going on then--if we pass this balanced budget amendment--and say, wow, look how much better off this country is. They'll still be fussing and fighting, but it will be using their resources to fix their problems instead of the model that we've put in place collectively, on both sides of the aisle. There's plenty of blame to go around. The decisions that will have to be made to balance our budget are no different with or without the balanced budget amendment. They are hard. They are difficult. And I've got $15 trillion worth of evidence that we're not making those tough decisions without the balanced budget amendment. Technically, we could get it done, but we're not getting it done--and we are on absolutely no path to get that done. I received today a petition from Jim Keffer, a State representative from Texas, signed by 969 other good Texans, urging me to support this balanced budget amendment. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all of my colleagues to think about the future of this country, how much better off will this country be with a balanced budget amendment. This is the only thing that we are contemplating doing over the next 15 years that has a remote chance of fundamentally changing for the better the future that my seven grandchildren face. It is a bleak future they face today. We can fundamentally change that future for the spending efforts of this country with a balanced budget amendment that will force us to do the things that everybody else does. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this balanced budget amendment. House of Representatives, District 60, Austin, Texas, November 16, 2011. Dear Congressman Conaway, it's time for us to stand together and teach Washington the first lesson in Texas economics: Don't spend more than you make! We Texans know the importance of fiscal responsibility and how to live within our means, and I'm proud that our state constitution reflects these principles by requiring the state legislature to pass a balanced budget each session. This valuable tool allows us to keep the size of our state government in check and our economy stable and job friendly! I am grateful that through your leadership and the leadership of our party, Congress now has the opportunity to debate and vote on a proposed constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget like we have here in Texas. You and I have the high honor of representing the hard working men and women of this great state in our respective governing bodies, and I submit to you the names of close to a thousand concerned citizens urging you to vote in favor of this constitutional amendment. This is a critical moment for our nation's future economic health and stability, and I encourage you join us and stand together as Texans to demand that Washington follow our lead! Please vote in favor of the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget! I sincerely appreciate your consideration on this matter. We value your leadership, and I look forward to the opportunity to continue working with you on the important issues facing our state and nation. God Bless America and the Great State of Texas! State Representative Jim Keffer, District 60.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from Nevada for yielding. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago Sunday our Nation endured one of the worst attacks that it has ever seen. Like so many Americans, I watched in total disbelief at the horrific tragedy that was unfolding on American soil. I stood in shock at the atrocities that were being broadcast live on our television sets. We mourned the loss of life, and we remain concerned about the lives of those trying to save the victims that were in those towers. These coordinated attacks were not just directed at buildings and people, but at the very fabric of our country. This enemy sought to create mass fear and uncertainty, but their heinous efforts are in vain and were in vain. They attacked men, women, and children. They attacked our military and civilians without hesitation or reservation. While in our shock, though, we found an American vigilance and strength that has not been seen since World War II. We reaffirmed our commitment to freedom in ourselves and our friends abroad, and that commitment remains strong today. This unwavering commitment can be seen in every single member of the Armed Forces who proudly wear our uniforms and their strong families. It's seen in our police officers, our firemen, our emergency personnel, and all first responders. It's actually seen in the Members of this body and those that you and I represent. Our commitment to liberty and freedom is as strong and unwavering in all of us today. Today we remember those who perished and thank those who have laid down their lives to defend us. We mourn the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, and the families that were broken and lost that day. We honor those first responders who risked their lives to save their fellow Americans. We praise the commitment of our servicemembers and their families who continue to keep the fight over there and not at home. We remember how we felt that day and the sense of patriotism that we found. As Americans today, we look forward knowing that although we face daunting challenges as a Nation, we have the resolve to meet those challenges. Much has been accomplished since that day. The world is safer and more free but, Mr. Speaker, there is much work that yet remains to be done. Let's renew the patriotism we felt that day and move our Nation forward. May God bless this great country.