John Fleming

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. I would like to thank my good friend, Dr. Burgess. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2. As a family physician who has been in private practice since 1982, I have seen a lot of things happen with Medicare, and this idea of sustainable growth rate, SGR, which came up in 1997--a Republican idea--is not only flawed, it is idiotic. It requires physicians to control throughout the country the entire volume of services provided, something that is absolutely impossible to do. It actually has had the opposite effect that was desired, and it has actually increased the amount of activity because of the loss of the valuable economic foundations that are necessary to make this system work. What this repeal of SGR will do is, number one, actually show what the cost of this is. We have been hiding it, like a shell game, for years with temporary patches that last, oh, maybe a year and sometimes less. Not only will this pay for itself in the second decade, but it actually begins to lower that cost even in the first decade, and it does so by using several mechanisms but with two important reforms that my colleagues need to know about. One, it reforms Medigap policies, which gives patients skin in the game. It makes patients, once again, a part of the decision team so that they, by having some element of price sensitivity, can work with the doctors to decide what is necessary and what is not, what is affordable and what is not; also, it asks higher-income seniors to do their share. Remember that the current Medicare system is a highly subsidized system for everybody, including for Warren Buffett, a $40 billion billionaire who gets his health care subsidized. I urge my colleagues to support this. This will increase patient care.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington for votes on Tuesday, February 24, 2015. Winter weather conditions in Northern Louisiana caused my flight to be cancelled. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted NAY on H.R. 212 and AYE on H.R. 734.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5069) to amend the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act to increase in the price of Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps to fund the acquisition of conservation easements for migratory birds, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As author of H.R. 5069, I am pleased that we are considering this bipartisan bill that has been cosponsored by the dean of the House of Representatives, the leadership of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and the entire Louisiana House congressional delegation. The Federal Duck Stamp Act will modestly increase the price of the Federal duck stamp for the first time in 23 years and, by so doing, restore the buying power of this conservation tool which has been used to acquire, conserve, lease, and restore thousands of acres of wetlands. Wetlands are critical to the survival of not only migratory waterfowl but to the millions of Americans who live along our coastlines. The U.S. Geological Survey has calculated that for every 2.5 miles a hurricane travels across wetlands, the storm surge is reduced by 1 foot. It is therefore likely that wetlands were directly responsible for saving lives and property in the gulf coast that were devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This legislation has been endorsed by Ducks Unlimited and more than 30 national conservation organizations, including the National Rifle Association, Boone and Crockett Club, the National Wild Turkey Federation, and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. In their support letter, these groups noted that, ``In order for us to pass down our hunting heritage from generation to generation, sustain a vital and viable resource for wildlife and people, we must increase the price of the duck stamp this year.'' I urge adoption of H.R. 5069, and I want to thank all of the Members who join with me in this effort. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in closing that not only do we have huge bipartisan support for this bill, but I just want to point out, as an example, in 2012, we spent, essentially, an equal amount of money on both the fee simple land purchase and the easement. Around $16- to $17 million each. But look at the bang for the buck we got. We purchased 14,747 acres fee simple, but on easements we got 48,144. So it is obvious that not only is this a huge savings to the taxpayer, this is a much better deal, but also think about the maintenance costs that are now going to be unnecessary because landowners with the easements will continue to maintain the land rather than taxpayers. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5162) to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to allow a certain parcel of land in Rockingham County, Virginia, to be used for a child care center'' to remove the use restriction, and for other purposes.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1989, the Department of the Interior deeded a small parcel of land to Rockingham County, Virginia, for public purpose. This land includes a garage that had previously been used by the National Park Service. The County determined a nonprofit childcare center in Broadway, Virginia, would benefit from the use of the garage, and Public Law 101- 479 allowed the deed to be changed for the particular use of the childcare center. However, under the terms and restrictions of the transfer, the nonprofit is unable to obtain financing to make improvements and renovations to the property. H.R. 5162 would remove the restrictions on the land so the necessary upgrades may be made to the childcare center. Congressman Goodlatte has offered a commonsense bill that will assist the constituents and the community. I urge support for the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FLEMING. We have no further speakers.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the President's vague and inadequate strategy for dealing with ISIS; and, therefore, I rise in opposition to this amendment. In his haste to claim credit for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, President Obama left the door open to exactly the kind of crisis that has exploded throughout the region. Instead of working hard to renew a status of forces agreement with a sufficient number of American troops to preserve the peace, President Obama was anxious to use withdrawal from Iraq as a campaign slogan in 2012. We are now reaping the whirlwind sown by that reckless policy. This new policy is little more than an incremental strategy, not unlike the one used in Vietnam. History warns of the dangers of such approaches. By moving hesitantly, in piecemeal fashion, the enemy has more time to learn, adapt, and get stronger. This is a recipe for stalemate and failure. There is another obvious lesson in all of this: almost since taking office, the Obama administration has been working to reduce our military. President Obama has directed over $1 trillion in cuts to the U.S. military since he took office. Under his planned cuts, senior Army leaders have testified that the Army would be unable to repeat its performance over the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, finally, the President has acted as if dangerous and avowed enemies are either not serious threats--like the JV team of global terrorism--or he has acted as though they are reasonable enemies who are willing to negotiate peace. Neither is true with ISIS. If we are going to degrade and destroy them it will not happen through an indecisive strategy that relies on unreliable and largely unknown help from Syrian rebels, whose own motivations and goals are mixed, and almost impossible to be certain of. In addition, recent history has taught us that the weapons and resources we commit to other forces could easily fall into the hands of even worse enemies, like ISIS.

Mr. FLEMING

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

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stop the implementation of Treasury guidance that is in direct conflict with the Federal anti- money laundering statutes. On February 14, 2014, the Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, issued compliance guidance for ``Bank Secrecy Act, BSA, expectations for financial institutions seeking to provide services to marijuana-related businesses.'' I am concerned that Treasury forgot one detail: the Bank Secrecy Act and Federal anti-money laundering laws are explicitly clear that banks and financial institutions may not engage in marijuana-related transactions. Despite trending State laws, Federal law remains unchanged. The Controlled Substances Act prohibits the manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana. Anything but compliance with the CSA, the law of the land, will trigger criminal anti-money laundering penalties, fines, and possible incarceration for perpetrators. Instead of issuing guidance to reinforce Federal prohibitions, the FinCEN memo offers banks ways to report suspicion activities as required under Federal law, while blatantly ignoring the fact that banks are not allowed to participate in any marijuana transactions, without exceptions. In other words, instead of enforcing the law, there is just a suspicion alert sent out, which we don't even know if anyone is even going to pay attention to. The very act of depositing drug money runs afoul of Federal law. Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the Department of Justice also issued a memo in 2014, ``Guidance Regarding Marijuana Financial Crimes.'' This separate memo reinforces Federal law and outlines possible prosecution and criminal offense for ``transactions involving proceeds generated by marijuana-related conduct.'' My amendment would stop the Department of the Treasury from implementing their February 2014 guidance, which is confusing and is actually creating problems throughout the industry. And it is the government, again, it is the administration not enforcing its own laws. This is nothing short of tacit approval for money laundering, all the while encouraging banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to engage in illegal and criminal activities. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield some time to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. FLEMING. That is correct, sir.

Mr. FLEMING. Right.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is absolutely a fact that marijuana, the use of marijuana and the sale of marijuana, is against federal law. Now, you may want to change that law, but that is the law. Also, our banking system, even those that are State banks, State charter banks, fall under a Federal banking system. You are talking about money laundering. Well, what about other drugs? What about heroin? What about methamphetamines? Should we also have exemptions and carve-outs for those as well? Why even have a system that detects money laundering and actually enforces that if we are going to begin to create exemptions and carve-outs for that as well? Also, I would remind folks that with regard to medical marijuana, that is still very controversial. The reason why marijuana is still a Schedule I drug, illegal, is that it is neither known nor accepted by authorities that raw marijuana has an acceptable medical use. Now, yes, extracts of marijuana, even Marinol--which is synthetic THC--is a schedule III, like hydrocodone, and that can be prescribed and monitored by a physician. There is no problem with that, and the money can go into any banking system. So if there are beneficial parts of the marijuana, we can extract that and create medication from it, whether it is liquid or tablet, injection or whatever, and then that will certainly be delivered, prescribed by physicians. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. I thank my good friend, who is also from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), and I do support the Cassidy-Fleming amendment. Mr. Chairman, the President has bragged about the increase in energy production during his tenure as President of the United States. However, what we have actually found is that there has been a 15 percent decline in energy production on Federal lands and offshore, where he is in control. On the other hand, in the private sector, we have had a veritable explosion in production, if you don't mind my using that term. What is that reflective of? It is reflective of the miracle that is fracking, which is going on in the U.S. today. One of the centers of that is the Haynesville shale in my district, where we have produced an abundance of natural gas. We used to have to import it from other countries. Today, we have such a glut that we have capped many of the wells. Natural gas is the cleanest carbon-based energy; so, while we are taking down coal, why aren't we increasing the production of natural gas? In doing so, why not supply it to the rest of the world? Because the air we breathe in the United States is the same air they breathe in China and in Russia and vice versa. I support this amendment. Let's stop throwing monkey wrenches into the machinery of natural gas production and energy production in general, and let's get the cost of energy down for Americans. Let's stop this nonsense, this hyperregulatory atmosphere we have. Despite the President's claim, it is American ingenuity--it is innovation by Americans, specifically fracking technology and horizontal drilling--that has brought about this wonderful miracle that we have. Let's get on board. Let's get both sides of the aisle on board with this, and let's stop messing around with our technology. This is going to be the first LNG export facility--that is, Lake Charles, which is just below my district, in Congressman Boustany's district--from which we are going to be supplying the rest of the world with natural gas-- which, as I say, has half the carbon footprint of coal.

Mr. FLEMING

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

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to, again, offer an amendment that would stop a loan program created by the 2009 stimulus bill. Last year's amendment passed the House by a significant margin, and the administration appeared to get the message, not authorizing any new projects during the fiscal year. However, in their most recent budget request, they plan to receive and review 100 project proposals, review six business plan proposals, provide technical assistance for the development of four projects, and assist with two projects in the financing phase. One of the future projects is estimated to cost $1.5 billion for the Federal share alone, which is almost half of the Western Area Power Administration's borrowing authority. How bad is this program? It is not merely a loan guarantee program, like the one that backed Solyndra. It is an actual loan from the Federal Government, with a built-in bailout mechanism. That's right, built in to the law is this actual bailout. I am going to quote from what the law says: If, at the end of the useful life of a project, there is a remaining balance owed to the Treasury under this section, the balance shall be forgiven. That means we have got agenda-driven, uneconomical renewable energy projects being funded directly by the Federal Government, and if they fail, taxpayers are on the hook once again. What has been the performance of these projects so far? In November 2011, the Department of Energy inspector general issued a lengthy management alert on the stimulus borrowing authority. To quote from that report: Because of a variety of problems, the project is estimated to be 2 years behind schedule and $70 million over budget; essentially out of funds; and currently at a standstill, with no progress being made. Western had not completed a formal root-cause analysis and corrective action plan designed to ensure more effective program safeguards are in place going forward. Because Western has committed $25 million in developmental funding to a potential $3 billion project that could ultimately require an investment of $1.5 billion in Recovery Act borrowing authority, we are issuing this report as a management alert. That is why last year's Republican budget noted: The $3.25 billion borrowing authority in the Western Area Power Administration's Transmission Infrastructure Program provides loans to develop new transmission systems aimed solely at integrating renewable energy. This authority was inserted into the stimulus bill without the opportunity for debate. Of most concern, the authority includes a bailout provision that would require American taxpayers to pay outstanding balances on projects that private developers failed to repay. As I and many others have pointed out when the bill was passed, the stimulus--which was billed as funding shovel-ready programs--actually became a vehicle to bake in higher levels of spending and new government programs. As with other government loan programs, we have all too often seen abuses and mismanagement, and this program is no exception. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank my colleagues, Mr. McClintock and Chairman Hastings, for their past work in offering and marking up a bill to repeal this program. I urge my colleagues, again, to support and pass this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.