Bob Gibbs

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Congress to reengage in the development of the Nation's water resources and play a bigger role in prioritizing projects and activities carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers. Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional responsibility in determining what projects should go forward and will reassert itself in the face of an administration that creates one-size- fits-all policy with little or no transparency. The conference report of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, is one of the most policy and reform-focused pieces of legislation related to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is a bipartisan conference report that was developed by working across the aisle to achieve a common goal of investing in America's future. This conference report contains no earmarks, cuts Federal red tape, streamlines the project delivery process, and strengthens our water transportation networks to promote competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth in jobs now and well into the future. This conference report is fiscally responsible by more than fully offsetting new project authorizations with deauthorizations of old, inactive projects. This conference report establishes a path forward for enacting a WRRDA bill every 2 years without conceding any congressional authority to the executive branch. Just because a study is costly, complex, and long does not necessarily mean it will produce a better project. In fact, a large costly project with so many add-ons that it never gets funded is a benefit to no one. In what used to take the corps 3 to 5 years to study, it has now become the norm for the corps to take 10, 12, or even 15 years to complete a study; and it is no wonder it is taking so much time, since the corps has to review in detail many different alternatives. Too often, we allow Federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, to literally study projects to death. This conference report accelerates the Corps of Engineers study delivery process by limiting studies to 3 years and $3 million. In addition, we accelerate the study delivery process by requiring concurrent reviews by the district, division, and headquarters level personnel. Ultimately, the Federal taxpayer is on the hook for these studies for the length of time it takes to carry them out. The corps reviews far too many alternatives and then sends to Congress a project request that far exceeds in scope and cost what was initially intended. Too often, non-Federal interests and their contributions are forced to sit on the sidelines while our international competitors race past us. This conference report empowers non-Federal interests and ensures projects will be completed faster and cheaper with local support. Too often, resources from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are diverted to activities unrelated to keeping U.S. ports competitive in a global marketplace. This conference report creates the incentive to spend the funds for their intended purpose. One of the most important elements of this legislation is that it ensures the legislative branch engages in the Water Resources Development Act process at least once every Congress. By working together, the conference committee has accomplished what many have said could not be done, produce an authorization bill for the Army Corps of Engineers without earmarks. In order to get these needed reforms in place and to establish the new process for future authorizations, I urge all Members to support the conference report.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3590, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013. I would like to speak specifically to title VI of the bill. The fundamental constitutional right to bear arms must be protected for all law-abiding citizens. Americans deserve the right to exercise their rights to not only enjoy recreational activities, but also provide self-defense for themselves and their loved ones. In the 111th Congress, this body passed legislation that ultimately became law which allows for guns to be legally possessed and carried on lands within our National Parks. Following enactment of that legislation, the Army Corps of Engineers immediately issued the following release: Public Law 111-024 does not apply to Corps projects or facilities. The passage of this new law does not affect application of title 36 regulations. The Corps administers over 11.7 million acres of land, including 400 lakes and river projects, 90,000 campsites, and 4,000 miles of trails. Much of this land is remote and without quick access to emergency services or law enforcement, so the ability to carry a firearm in the case of emergency is imperative. This Army Corps policy preempts State regulatory frameworks for transporting and carrying firearms, thus invalidating concealed weapons permits and other State laws that allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Title VI of the bill is aimed at protecting these rights by ensuring the right to carry at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Development Projects. Specifically, this legislation prohibits the Secretary of the Army from enforcing any regulation that prevents an individual from possessing firearms on these properties, thereby restoring the continuity to Federal law. Gun owners need to able to exercise their Second Amendment rights when they are legally camping, hunting, and fishing on Army Corps projects. I would like to thank my colleague from Ohio, Representative Latta, for including my bill into this piece of legislation. I urge Members to support title VI and this legislation as a whole.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. This week, Americans, the administration, along with the media, are starting to see the harmful effects of ObamaCare on our country. Many Ohioans are experiencing sticker shock and are desperately worried if they will have coverage at all and if they will keep their doctor. A constituent recently told me that his hours were cut to part- time in order for his employer to keep the business running. A man from Canton, Ohio, called in and will see his premiums increase by 700 percent due to this harmful law. A single mother of two young boys from Ashland, Ohio, will not be able to afford the increase in price of her premium each month under ObamaCare. When she wrote in, she asked a great question: If this is the Affordable Care Act, why can I no longer afford my health care insurance? It seems as though my constituents have more common sense than those who wrote this devastating law. I, along with my colleagues in the House, remain committed to protecting Americans from this law and ensuring that you are in charge of your health care decisions, not some bureaucrat here in Washington. Whether it is the doctor's office, the gas pump, the dinner table, or in the job market, Washington is standing in the way of hardworking Americans, and it is just not fair.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, now is the time for the Congress to reengage in the development of the Nation's water resources and play a bigger role in prioritizing projects and activities carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers. Congress cannot abdicate its constitutional responsibility in determining what projects should go forward and should reassert its constitutional authority. H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, is one of the most policy- and reform-focused pieces of legislation related to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. H.R. 3080 is a bipartisan bill that was developed by working across the aisle to achieve a common goal of investing in America's future. H.R. 3080 contains no earmarks, cuts Federal red tape, streamlines the project delivery process, and strengthens our water transportation networks to promote competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth. H.R. 3080 is a jobs bill. $1.4 trillion worth of goods associated with 30 million jobs in international trade are impacted. Thousands of jobs are created and supported by the construction and maintenance of our waterways and locks and dams. This bill is fiscally responsible by more than fully offsetting new project authorizations with deauthorizations of old, inactive projects. This bill establishes a path forward for enacting a WRRDA bill every 2 years without conceding any congressional authority to the executive branch. This committee held numerous listening sessions, public roundtables, and official hearings in developing the legislation. We have heard from the public, industry, stakeholders, and from our colleagues in Congress while developing this legislation and have incorporated their ideas into H.R. 3080. Just because a study is costly, complex, and long does not necessarily mean it is a better project. In fact, a large, costly project with so many add-ons that never gets funded is a benefit to no one. In what used to take the Army Corps 3 to 5 years to do a study has now become the norm for the Corps to take 10, 12, or even 15 years to produce a study. It is no wonder it is taking so much time, since the Corps has to review, in detail, many different alternatives. In one case, a Chief's Report was sent to the Congress last year. The study for the project was authorized in 1999. The original purpose of the project was for navigation improvements. But when the Chief's Report was delivered to the Congress last year, the total project cost was $650 million, but only $250 million was for the actual construction of the navigation improvements. The rest of the project costs, almost $400 million, are attributed to environmental enhancements, not just environmental mitigation. In another case, the Corps of Engineers delivered to Congress a Chief's Report for which there is no non-Federal cost-share partner. That study took 7 years to develop, but since there is no non-Federal sponsor, why should Congress authorize the project? The funding spent on that study could have been spent more wisely on projects where there are non-Federal sponsors and local support. Too often, we allow Federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, to literally study these projects to death. H.R. 3080 accelerates the Corps of Engineers study delivery process by limiting studies to 3 years and $3 million. In addition, we accelerate the study delivery process by requiring concurrent reviews at the district-, division-, and headquarters-level personnel. Ultimately, the Federal taxpayer is on the hook for these studies and for the length of time it takes to carry them out. The Corps reviews far too many alternatives and then sends to Congress a project request that far exceeds, in scope and costs, what was initially intended. Too often, non-Federal interests and their contributions are forced to sit on the sidelines while our international competitors race past us. H.R. 3080 empowers non-Federal interests and ensures projects will be completed faster and cheaper with local support. Too often, resources from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are diverted to other activities unrelated to keeping the U.S. ports competitive in a global marketplace. H.R. 3080 creates the incentive to spend the funds for their intended purpose in a manner that all ports agree upon. One of the most important elements of this legislation is that it ensures the legislative branch engages in the Water Resources Development Act process at least once every Congress.

Mr. GIBBS. I appreciate Messrs. Shuster, Rahall, and Bishop's bipartisan support. By working together, we can accomplish solid goals to get this done. I urge the reforms pass. I want to thank my subcommittee staff--Geoff Bowman, John Anderson, Jon Pallow--and my personal staff--Corry Marshall and Joe Price--for their efforts.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan manager's amendment. In this amendment, we provide clarity related to expediting projects while authorizing the Corps of Engineers to move to pre-construction, planning, engineering, and design activities immediately following a completed feasibility study. This will ensure work will continue without stops and starts in the study process. We authorize non-Federal interests with the ability to carry out work at their own expense pursuant to an unauthorized yet completed feasibility study if the non-Federal interest agrees to carry out the work subject to any State or Federal permitting departments, and that the non-Federal interests carry out the project in accordance with the feasibility study. We request that the Corps of Engineers review the uses and economic feasibility of nonstructural alternatives in their review of existing authorities for clearing-out work after a storm event. We have made technical and conforming changes to the bill. We developed this amendment working closely with Members to address several key issues and to improve upon the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, like myself and many Americans, I am very frustrated over the inaction of Congress to get its work done; but let's look back at what has happened over the last week or so. The House Republicans, we have sent bills over to the Democratically- controlled Senate to open the government, to run the government, to fund the government. We have sent, starting from delaying ObamaCare, which most Americans have serious problems with, to other bills, and I want to talk about the latter two that we sent. One was to fund the government completely until December 15, but also with two exceptions. The one exception is that Members of Congress and the President would live by the same rules under ObamaCare that all Americans have to. The other exception is ObamaCare. We need to delay those rules, and let's move on. The people that talk about the status quo in American history here, the status quo, if you vote for a clean CR, you want the status quo to remain the same. That means unemployment stays where it is, forcing Americans into part-time work. We need structural changes to the underlying problems. We need to address why our debt keeps going up. The President, yesterday, in his news conference, talked about raising the debt ceiling doesn't increase the debt ceiling, doesn't increase spending. Well, I wish the President would answer to me: When he took office, the debt was $10 trillion; now it is approaching $17 trillion. How does raising the debt ceiling not increase the debt? The President talks about it is unprecedented, talking about the debt ceiling and having negotiations would be unprecedented if we do that. Well, Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill did it. Bill Clinton did it. President Obama did it in 2011 under the Budget Control Act. It is not unprecedented. And, interestingly, the time the President has been forced to negotiate are times when we have had crises that we have had to address, and the President did that in 2011. If ObamaCare is so good and it is the President's signature piece of legislation, he ought to be the first one to sign up for it. I believe the First Family ought to be the first in line to sign up for ObamaCare. But, you know what? The President of the United States is exempt from ObamaCare. It doesn't make sense. He ought to have to live by his own bills that he supported and pressed through. We talk about compromise. I am sure the President doesn't watch FOX News, but I think Bill O'Reilly has a compromise that maybe makes some sense. The individual mandate--that was one of the things we put in there, in one of those bills--we said delay the individual mandate for 1 year. The President delayed the employer mandate for 1 year. It only makes sense, especially when you see so many people having trouble signing up, getting on and all the uncertainty. We are getting reports now of premiums going through the roof, higher deductibles, higher copays, and we need to delay it. One of the items we said in the bill was to delay the individual mandate for 1 year. That was rejected by the Senate. Also, we sent a bill over there to say, Okay, if you don't take that, let's just go to conference. Let's sit down and talk. Let's negotiate. But I think the compromise Bill O'Reilly put out on FOX News the other night makes some sense. Make the individual mandate voluntary, but don't force people to go on this. Delay it for 1 year. Don't force people to go on this and risk their privacy concerns, force them to pay higher insurance premiums for insurance they may not need. Let's see what happens. As ObamaCare moves through, I think that is a compromise that makes some sense, and the President ought to look at that and talk about that; but in order to do that, he needs to come to the table. He needs to sit down with House Republicans and negotiate and work through the problems. That is how our system of government was set up, and that is how it is supposed to work. The Founders had that right, especially in divided government. So I encourage the President. Now, this morning there are some reports that the President is inviting the House and Senate Democrats to the White House later today, and supposedly we are going to get an invitation here soon. That is encouraging. I hope he is serious about sitting down and working out the differences, because we have to get back to the work the American people expect us to do. So I look forward to sitting down with the President and our leadership and working through these problems and getting the government going; but we can't do it without sitting down and talking and making sense and representing the American people, because we were elected to do that.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to talk about the benefits of cancer research and the importance of the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. In my home State of Ohio, over 66,000 people will be diagnosed with cancer this year and over 25,000 will lose their battle with this devastating disease. Like every State, Ohio receives essential funding from the NIH each year. The NIH funds lifesaving medical research leading to the development of innovative ways to prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer. This research takes place at universities, hospitals, cancer centers, and labs across my State, including the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center and the James Cancer Center at Ohio State University. In addition to the benefits of combating cancer and so many other diseases, NIH funding also produces tens of billions of dollars in new economic activity across the country. According to the Ohio Council of Medical Deans, every dollar invested in biomedical research translates to a $2.21 investment in the local economy. In 2012 alone, Ohio received almost $800 million in NIH funding, which supported more than 13,000 jobs. Cancer is a disease that does not discriminate against age or race. Many people have friends or loved ones who have been affected by this terrible disease. I urge my colleagues to support cancer research.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to strike section 107 of the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. Section 107 prohibits the Corps of Engineers from developing, adopting, implementing, administrating, or enforcing any change to the Corps and EPA rules and guidance defining the waters of the United States. This provision is aimed at the so-called ``guidance'' which the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers have developed to expand the extent of waters covered by the Clean Water Act. This so-called guidance goes far beyond merely clarifying the scope of waters subject to the Clean Water Act programs. This guidance has been sitting around for nearly 3 years and is acting as de facto law. By the agency's own admission, the guidance would substantially change Federal policy with respect to which waters fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and significantly increase the scope of the Federal Government's power to regulate waters and land associated with those waters. The effect of the guidance will be to reverse the decisions by the United States Supreme Court that recognized limits to the Federal Government's regulatory authority and to undermine the longstanding Federal-State partnership in the regulation of waters. This expansion has resulted in confusion, permitting delays, and added costs and burdens for communities, farmers, small businessmen, industries, and other Americans. The administration has issued this so-called ``guidance'' and has refused to go to the rulemaking process, which violates the principles of the Administrative Procedures Act, the APA, and the intent of Congress when they enacted the law. The APA sets the standards for the activities and rulemaking for all Federal regulatory agencies and is designed to ensure those Federal agencies use open, uniform, and fair procedures. The requirements of the APA are not mere formalities. In unilaterally developing its guidance, the administration has ignored calls from the State agencies and environmental groups, as well as Members of Congress, including almost half the Members of the House of Representatives, to proceed through the normal rulemaking procedures and has avoided consulting with the States, which are the Federal agency partners, in implementing the Clean Water Act. This amendment condones the administration's willingness to ignore the requirements of the APA and supports the administration's Federal jurisdictional power grab under the Clean Water Act. I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GIBBS. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to strike section 112 of the Energy and Water appropriations bill. The current regulatory definition of the term ``fill material'' is consistent with EPA and the Corps' longstanding practice and ensures that necessary placement of excess rock and soil generated by construction and development projects in waters in the United States are regulated by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This current rule brings certainty and protects the environment. Both the EPA and the Corps have stated they are considering revising the definition of fill material. If unelected bureaucrats redefine this important definition, it would have a significant impact on the ability of all earth-moving industries, road and highway construction projects, and private and commercial enterprises to obtain vital Clean Water Act section 404 permits. Changing the definition of fill material could result in the loss of up to 375,000 high-paying mining jobs and further this administration's assault on over 1 million jobs that are dependent on the economic output generated by these operations. Congress should therefore reject any attempts to add a new, inappropriately narrow definition of the term ``fill material'' that will not only harm existing operations but would also halt many new job-creating projects. I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, as of today, 85 percent of the offshore areas have been blocked from offshore drilling by the Obama administration. The energy legislation on the floor this week makes significant strides towards increasing our offshore production. Additional energy production contributes to lowering fuel prices at a time when gas prices are over 100 percent higher than when President Obama took office. H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, creates 1.2 million American jobs over the long term by removing Federal barriers to offshore energy production. According to the CBO, the legislation would also generate $1.5 billion in new Federal revenues over the 10-year period, which helps pay down our outrageous national debt. This important legislation grows the economy and creates American jobs at a time of high unemployment and stagnant economic growth. Furthermore, it puts us on a path to energy independence and security by decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. We need to stand together to support this legislation that addresses our soaring gas prices and our sinking economy.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment builds on the reforms in the underlying bill and scraps the proposed ``supply management'' program. Doing so will allow farmers and dairy producers to expand and meet the growing global demand for American dairy products. It will grow our exports and grow our economy. It also will protect families and farmers. Families are already having enough trouble making ends meet. This amendment will help bring down prices for our constituents by providing more opportunity and fairness to dairy farmers across the country. It also will save taxpayers dollars. This amendment saves taxpayers another $15 million on top of the savings in the underlying bill. Every penny counts. This amendment will create better and more market-driven policies for our farmers. Supply management is not the way to go. I support the Goodlatte-Scott amendment.

Mr. GIBBS

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

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the Gibbs-Kind amendment to title I of the FARRM Bill that sets the target price for all crops at 55 percent of the 5-year rolling Olympic average and changes the acreage available for target price support to 85 percent of the farmer's base acres. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. At this time, I yield 90 seconds to Representative Kind from the great State of Wisconsin.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to myself. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to talk a little bit. Back in the 1995 farm bill, Congress made a decision to move the programs to be more market- oriented, where farmers would plant towards the market and not towards the program. As past-State Farm Bureau president and also a farmer, when I talk to my farmer colleagues, they want the check to come from the market and not the government. And my fear is, my concern is that the House-marked bill will distort the market prices by setting the target prices, as Representative Kind said, too high. Let's take corn, for example. We had a drought. We saw the prices scoot up to very high levels. Well, we're seeing some rainfall, the weather kind of moderates over and averages out over a several-year period, and it's possible we could see the prices of corn, for example, come down and drop below these very high-set target rates, and farmers could still be profitable, still be making some money on a per-bushel basis, depending on their yield--yield has to be a factor. And when you have price loss coverage, yield is not factored in, where they could actually still be making some money on a per-bushel basis per acre and still get a government payout. That's market distortion. It's interesting to note that the organizations that support my amendment, the National Corn Growers, the Soybean Association, many national organizations and State organizations that represent thousands of farmers out there strongly support my amendment, which, as Representative Kind said, cuts $12 billion from the committee-marked bill. You find that kind of odd. The reason is they don't want to go back to the previous policies of 1995 where we have market distortions and farmers are planting for the program and the market is not dictating it, and they never get out of that rut. Another concern I have is WTO concerns. When we change this to planted acres, direct benefits paid to planted acres, that's ripe for a WTO complaint and for a trade war. And this will increase, I believe, overplanting and farmers reacting for the wrong reasons and not the market reasons. So, on that basis, Mr. Chairman, with the strong support of many of the national commodity organizations that represent thousands of farmers and strongly do not want this, we can save taxpayers $12 billion and keep a market-oriented bill and not risk exposure to taxpayers if the markets collapse to more historical levels.

Mr. GIBBS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.