Tim Griffin

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 178 on H.R. 2157 I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Keystone XL pipeline as well as the underlying bill. The plot here is for jobs, American jobs. It's a no-brainer. Like most Arkansans, I support this pro-jobs project that will strengthen our national security by making us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Arkansas families and businesses are hurting due to high gas prices, and the Keystone pipeline will bring an additional 1 million barrels of oil per day into the United States. More supply means lower prices, and Arkansans, as well as all Americans, need relief from these high gas prices. President Obama denied construction of the Keystone XL pipeline despite years of extensive vetting for environmental impacts. Make no mistake, the President's decision to reject the Keystone pipeline has cost American jobs. Welspun, a manufacturer in my district, has manufactured nearly half of the pipe for the Keystone pipeline and was forced to lay off 60 workers after the President rejected the pipeline, after he delayed it last year. The Keystone pipeline will strengthen American energy security and create tens of thousands of good American jobs. It's past time to move the Keystone pipeline forward.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor three Arkansas heroes. Jacksonville Fire Department Captain Donald Jones and Engineer Jason Bowmaster along with Jacksonville Police Officer Daniel DiMatteo were struck by a van while responding to an accident on Monday, March 19th. Engineer Bowmaster and Officer DiMatteo are in stable condition. However, tragically, Captain Jones, a 31-year veteran of the department, passed away as a result of his injuries. He is the first member of the Jacksonville Fire Department to be killed in the line of duty. Captain Jones served the last years of his career with Station 4 and is survived by his wife, Betty, his five children, three brothers, nine grandchildren, and one great-grandson.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate The Leader newspaper on its twenty-five years of excellence. In 1987, Garrick Feldman and his wife, Eileen, published the first edition of The Leader, a community-oriented weekly newspaper that strove to serve all of its readers ``without fear or favor.'' Today, the Feldmans, with the help of their dedicated staff, bring Arkansans in Pulaski, Lonoke, White, and Prairie counties the important news that affects their lives. The Leader's coverage of our local schools' academic and athletic accomplishments serves as a reminder of the talent throughout the community and the promise of the future. Over the past quarter-century, The Leader has experienced tremendous growth, earning the title, ``the best large weekly in Arkansas'' for the past four years. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating The Leader on their accomplishments during their twenty-five years in business and in wishing them continued success. Mr. Speaker, The Leader recently published an article highlighting this milestone, and I submit it in the Record. [From the Leader, Mar. 17., 2012] Newspaper Celebrates 25 Years (By Eileen Feldman) In the first issue of The Leader on March 4, 1987, publisher Garrick Feldman said, ``The North Pulaski Leader intends to be a mirror to the community--to report all that is newsworthy in Jacksonville, Sherwood, the air base and surrounding areas . . . We want to chronicle the events, both small and large, that are taking place here . . . The newspaper also promises to serve its advertisers well.'' He continued, ``This newspaper will be about you and your neighbors, so let us hear from you if you have news to share with others.'' Twenty-five years later, The Leader is keeping its promise of delivering community news for an affordable subscription price and delivering consistent results for advertisers through a combination of mail (with its free edition, The Extra) and home delivery to subscribers in an expanded local area which now includes Pulaski County from Sherwood and Gravel Ridge to Jacksonville to Little Rock Air Force Base. The Leader is also serving all of Cabot and most of Lonoke County including Lonoke, Austin, Ward and Carlisle and the surrounding rural confines. In White County, The Leader serves Beebe, McRae, El Paso, Garner and Butlerville and to a lesser extent Searcy including many White County rural routes. The Leader's reach also extends into Prairie County giving our advertisers an even bigger bonus for their buck. By all accounts, The Leader has grown by leaps and bounds and we want to thank you, dear readers and also our advertisers for your steadfast loyalty to The Leader and to the American dream. Some of our advertisers have been with us since the beginning, and to you we extend our gratitude and our wishes for your continued success in business. May we continue to grow together. What publisher Feldman said then still holds true today, ``Share with us our joys and sorrows--your proud moments and your sad ones. The news that ordinary people make is just as important to us as what their leaders do on city councils and school boards.'' And it still holds true today that ``if you have an engagement or wedding announcement, send us the announcement and also a photo. If there is a birth in your family, send us a picture also.'' Of course, times have changed in 25 years so we now accept all this by e-mail at leadernewsarkansasleader.com or at editor@arkansasleader.com. But we still do some things the old-fashioned way--mailed submissions are still accepted and cards of thanks and obituaries are still free. We love to cover our local schools and encourage teachers to let us know of their students' accomplishments and awards as well as their own. We still consider covering significant birthdays, centenarians in particular, and submitted photos are always welcome. Letters to the editor are always welcome. We want to hear the voice of the community. We also pride ourselves on our local sports coverage including football, basketball, baseball, volleyball and soccer and also local news which impacts sports. Coaches comments and local submissions of news tips and photos help to give flavor to those pages. As we said back in 1987, ``This newspaper will try to serve all of its readers without fear or favor. The Leader intends to open its pages to everyone.'' We also want to extend a big thank you to the many on our staff including our son Jonathan, who joined our staff as an editor and who will help us continue to produce a strong family-owned and community-oriented newspaper. We wish to thank our veteran reporters, Rick Kron, Joan McCoy and John Hofheimer, who rejoined the staff after a brief hiatus and a visit to Greece. All journalism award winners, they've helped make The Leader what it is today. Also Christy Hendricks, our creative designer, as well as Jeffrey Smith, who has come a long way since his first days at The Leader and who's made many friends with his Cabot and Beebe coverage. Sarah Campbell, an ASU-Jonesboro grad, has local roots in the area, which have helped her ferret out some outstanding local stories. Sports editor Ray Benton's attention to local sports is outstanding and caters to our greater local area with the help of veteran sportswriter Jason King. We also wish to thank our advertising staff led by General Manager John Henderson and our Publications Manager Matt Robinson. Also invaluable members of the sales staff are Linda Hostetler and Susan Swift. You've stuck with us through thick and thin, through the idiosyncracies of the economy, its ups and downs. We couldn't have done it without you. You've all helped us get to where we are today. There are many other staff members--designers, artists and photographers--who should be singled out for their loyalty and outstanding work ethic. And there are many more starting at the front office and on to the pressroom and mailroom, where the final product is prepared which arrives at your front door or in your mailbox. (We'll introduce them all to you in a later edition.) Readers, advertisers and staff, you have helped The Leader become what it is today. Continue to grow and thrive with us.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, Senator Lieberman, an Independent from Connecticut, said: ``The truth is we cannot save Medicare as we know it. We can save Medicare only if we change it.'' I agree with Senator Lieberman. My mother is on Medicare, and I want to ensure care for our senior citizens by maintaining this program for those currently on Medicare and preserving it for future generations. Our budget, which we will vote on tomorrow, saves Medicare for current and future generations with no disruptions for those in and near retirement. Our reforms are not partisan. In fact, they are based on a bipartisan proposal by Chairman Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon. I urge my colleagues to support the GOP budget tomorrow because failure to take action to save this program today poses the greatest threat to the health and retirement security of America's seniors.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I just wanted to comment on something you said there. It might be a different debate if this Federal Government operated efficiently and ran everything perfectly, but we don't have a track record to brag on when it comes to managing this sort of thing. What makes folks think that all the answers are in Washington? Where's the evidence of that? I don't think you can point to it. I think the record shows that when you let States do what is good for them, in particular, and experiment and innovate, try new things, serve as laboratories to learn the best way forward, that's what succeeds. The idea that one size fits all from up here, that's not patient- centered; that's government-centered.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate you putting this together. I'm happy to come over here to the floor of the House to talk about the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare. Before I talk about the Constitution and ObamaCare, I want to make really clear to folks who may be joining us tonight that all of us here believe that we need serious health care reform in the United States. We know that we need health care reform. There are many parts of our health care system that we need to reform so that it is more efficient and so that we can deal with the rising costs. We get that. What we don't need is the health care reform that we got. We are not against health care reform. We are against the type of health care reform that we were given with ObamaCare, a government-centered, costly, bureaucratic health care law. What I favor, and I think a lot of my colleagues favor, is a patient- centered health care reform that focuses on innovation and reducing costs, allowing more competition across State lines for insurance companies so that they can drive the costs down. We are looking for ways to provide quality care, to continue to provide quality care to Americans while reducing costs. I just want to make that really clear. We understand the need for health care reform. We also understand the need to reform Medicare. We know that we must reform it to save it. The President's health care law, as we've heard some others refer to tonight, doesn't save Medicare. It makes changes. It takes $500 billion out of Medicare. He also set up an independent board, as we've heard, that will decide where cuts should be made. Instead of reforming, instead of looking for ways to innovate, it just cuts. Ultimately, it rations Medicare. That's what the President's plan does. We have a better alternative, a patient-centered alternative. We're here tonight to talk about the law that we have, the law that I and many of my colleagues voted to repeal, and that is what some call ObamaCare, the President's health care law. We first have to start out--we're talking about the Constitution--and recognize that this Constitution sets limits on the power of government. If it does not set limits on the power of government, then what good is it? It's not worth the paper it's written on if it doesn't set limits on government. That's exactly what it does. That's why we have a Constitution in the first place. The Founders, the people that started this great country, they knew what government overreach could do. They knew what government power out of control could do. The Founders were very specific in providing limitations on government in this document. When enumerating the powers of Congress, the Constitution clearly presents the power to regulate as separate and distinct from the power to raise and create. Let me tell you a little more about what I'm talking about here. The issue of whether ObamaCare is constitutional or not boils down to the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the Federal Government the ability to regulate commerce. When setting out the powers, the Constitution clearly talks about the power to regulate as separate and distinct from the power to raise and create. Congress, for example, was given the power to create money and then regulate it. Congress was given the power to raise an Army and then the power to regulate it. But that's not the case with commerce. That's not the case with doing business. Congress was only given the power to regulate commerce, not raise it or create it. The power to raise or create it is not there. For money in the military, the power to regulate does not include the power to raise; rather, it follows it. So the bottom line here is, there's no power to create commerce, create business transactions where they don't exist. As one of the gentlemen that was here earlier said, Where does it end? If the Federal Government can make you buy insurance, health insurance, can they make you eat your broccoli? Can they make my 2-year-old and 4-year-old eat their broccoli? I happen to love potato chips. They're probably not the best thing for me. Can you stop me from eating them? If I eat too many during a Razorback game, does the Congress of the United States have the power to pay say, We've got to cut down on the number of chips people are eating? I say no, Congress does not have the power to do that. But you know what? A lot of folks would say yes, using the same reasoning that they believe they can make you buy health insurance. And that's ultimately what this debate is about. Yes, it's about health care. It's about the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare, but, more broadly, it's about the Federal Government reaching into your life and telling you how to live it because the Federal Government thinks that it knows best. The Federal Government thinks it knows what you should eat, when you should eat it, what kind of insurance you ought to buy. Now, I can't speak for the Founders, but I've got to believe, having read this document and many others that were written around the time of the founding of this country, I've got to believe that they would be outraged, outraged if they knew what was going on in their name, if they knew that the Federal Government was claiming to have the power to do the things that it claims it has the power to do. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical week in our history because of the arguments that are going on at the Supreme Court, and the decision that comes out of the Supreme Court on this issue will be monumental. I would say, for me and the people that I represent in Arkansas that I talk with when I go home, that we believe that this Constitution establishes a limited government, and that no matter how you interpret it, you have to agree that it sets limits, and the Federal Government cannot force you to do whatever it wants you to do.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I've come here to the floor tonight with my colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Duffy, to talk about the crisis Medicare faces and to talk about the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Some call it the IPAB. It's a part of the President's health care law, and this House is going to address it this week. But I want to start out by talking a little bit about the crisis that we're facing in this country over Medicare and what it means to our seniors. My mother is 71, and she's a Medicare recipient. She counts on Medicare. She paid into it and is now using it to take care of herself. And we've got to make sure that future generations are able to rely on, count on Medicare. This first chart here, Mr. Speaker, shows what a significant portion of the Federal budget Medicare consumes. We have it here, $555 billion, and that is per year. This is a yearly budget for the Federal Government. It is widely agreed upon by Democrats and Republicans that Medicare is going bankrupt. Some estimate it's 7 years, 8 years, 10 years, but most everyone agrees, having looked at the numbers, that Medicare is going bankrupt. I've got a quote here from Senator Lieberman, who addresses a criticism that we hear a lot about the Republican reform plan on Medicare: We can agree that Medicare is going bankrupt. We then have to ask ourselves, what are we going to do about it? What are we doing about it? Well, the House has acted to reform Medicare. We acted last year, in 2011, as part of our budget to reform Medicare to save it. The only reason we proposed reforms to Medicare is because we want to save it. We want it to be there for the next generation. I've heard a lot of criticism: You want to change Medicare as we know it. I say: No, Medicare, as we know it, goes bankrupt on its own. We have to act to save Medicare, Mr. Speaker. And in this quote of Senator Lieberman, he says: The truth is that we cannot save Medicare as we know it. We can save Medicare only if we change it. Now, like House Republicans, I think it's fair to say, Senator Lieberman is talking about what we must do for the next generation. Like our proposal, I think a lot of us agree that we can make changes to Medicare for the next generation, and for those, for example, 55 and over, leave it as it is. Why? Because people have counted on a particular way the program works, and we won't have to change that to start saving. We can just change it for the next generation. I have another quote here I want to share with you that shows that President Obama, at least in his words, understands that we have a problem with Medicare. If you look at the numbers, Medicare, in particular, will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program, no matter how much taxes go up. This is the President. He continues: I mean, it's not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. Unfortunately, those are just words because that is precisely what the President has done, sit by and do nothing. It's what the Senate has done. The House has acted to reform to save Medicare. Now, the President's health care law has a provision in it, the IPAB that I referred to earlier, that impacts Medicare, but it doesn't save Medicare. It rations Medicare. How does that work? Well, this is an unelected board, it's an unelected board that will make decisions on where Medicare is cut. So the President has had an opportunity to propose reforms to the way Medicare works, so that we can innovate and change it to save it for future generations--reform it, upgrade it, do things better. But instead, the President's approach is simply to cut the levels of spending but leave the overall functioning of Medicare the same. So no innovation, no new approach, no reform, just cut when we run out of money. Well, what does that result in? It results in seniors not getting the care they need, and not just because services are reduced but because a lot of doctors won't take Medicare patients. This is already a problem today. Today there are seniors looking for a doctor to help them with their particular problem, and doctor after doctor says, I'm sorry; we don't take Medicare. That problem is only going to get worse if the IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board that's in the President's health care law, if it does what it is scheduled to do. Now, what are we doing about it here in the House? Well, we certainly voted to repeal the President's health care law. That passed the House, did not pass the Senate. But we've tried a lot of other ways to get at the problem, and one that we're going to do this week is to repeal the IPAB, repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Will the gentleman yield for a quick point?

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I just want to make sure I understand what the gentleman is saying. What you are saying--correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is the House has a plan to reform Medicare to save it. As far as I know, I haven't seen any other plan to save Medicare pass the Senate. I haven't seen the President propose a plan to save Medicare. There is only one. Now the President has a plan for Medicare, but it's not to save it, and it really doesn't reduce cost through innovation and what have you; it just cuts. And the cuts are decided upon by unelected bureaucrats who are on this IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. You mentioned the television ads. I had television ads run back in my district. They talked about how I and others want to change Medicare as we know it. Well, I quoted Senator Lieberman earlier, who said we can't save Medicare as we know it because it's going bankrupt. So what I say to folks is we have to reform it. And I'm happy to have a discussion and debate and compare this reform with that reform. I'm happy to do that. What is intellectually dishonest, though, is to compare reforms that I advocate or you advocate, to compare those to the way it is now. That's intellectually dishonest. It's actually deception. Why is that deception? Because the way things are now is not going to be that way in 7, 8, 9, 10 years. It's unsustainable, the path we're on with regard to Medicare. So if someone says your reform changes Medicare as we know it, if that is presented to demagogue, that, in and of itself, is intellectually dishonest, because Medicare as we know it goes bankrupt and changes itself. So I am happy to have a conversation to compare this reform with that reform. I certainly do not have a monopoly on wisdom in this area. I think we ought to be having a free and open debate of reform ideas that save Medicare for seniors. But what we can't do, what we can't do, is mislead people, mislead seniors into believing that Medicare, as it currently functions, is sustainable. That's not true. That's not true. Folks who continue to talk about Medicare as we know it need to point out that Medicare as we know it ends on its own by itself. The Congress of the United States could do nothing on this for 10, 20, 30 years, whatever, and Medicare would go bankrupt with no congressional action. So our job, as I see it, is to take affirmative steps to save Medicare, to maintain the quality, to maintain the quality so that doctors still want to take Medicare patients, and reform it to save it for people, seniors like my mother. But we've got to start with the fundamental idea that we could debate reforms. But comparing reform to an unsustainable status quo is intellectually dishonest. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. What really scares me is that this restricted access to health care, to Medicare that you're talking about, it already exists. The IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, that's in ObamaCare that will cut the amount of reimbursement to doctors when it gets going, it's not even cutting yet and we already have a problem with seniors getting the doctor that they want because so many doctors have said, I'm just not going to take Medicare any more. Before I yield back, I just wanted to mention an email that I got in my office this week. There's a constituent of mine, John Pollett. He's the program administrator for the Arkansas Senior Medicare Patrol. He goes around and he talks with seniors about Medicare and how to recognize fraud in Medicare. He was at the Sherwood Senior Center this past week, this week, in my district, and he was giving a presentation teaching Arkansas seniors about Medicare fraud. A lady, a senior, who's on Medicare, an angry senior, said to him--she wasn't angry at him--but she said with passion, I don't understand why I'm forced to pay my Medicare premium but can't find a doctor who will take me because I'm on Medicare. So we already have a problem with access to Medicare because more and more doctors are saying, I'm not going to take Medicare. There are a host of reasons: the reimbursement rate, the administrative hassle, what have you. But IPAB, I hear the gentleman from Wisconsin saying, the Independent Payment Advisory Board that's in ObamaCare is only going to make the problem worse because while some of us are interested in reforming the way Medicare works so that we get more service for our dollar, the President is only interested in saving money by just reducing and cutting without reforming. We all understand the need to reach solvency; but those of us who back Medicare reform want to do it through innovative, creative, cost- saving approaches that avoid rationing, whereas the President simply wants to cut through an unelected board. I'm going to yield back now to the gentleman from Wisconsin. I just thought it would be helpful to give you a real-life example of a senior in my district who's been impacted by that.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I thank the gentleman for joining us here on the floor tonight. I see my friend Mr. Quayle from Arizona here with us on the floor, and I would like to yield to him at this time.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I wanted to just point out that 70 House Democrats opposed IPAB when it was being debated in the President's health care law. Before I ever got to Congress, there were 70. In fact, it wasn't in the House version. I'm hopeful that some of the Democrats who have come out against IPAB will join us in repealing it so we can move on to truly reforming Medicare to save it. We're lucky and fortunate to have some physicians, many physicians, serving with us here in the House of Representatives; and they bring an expertise in this area that really helps us when we're working on solutions to the problems with Medicare and Medicaid. One of them has joined us here on the floor tonight. I would like to yield to my friend from Tennessee.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Even a bipartisan discussion, I welcome it. In fact, I was proud to see that a Democrat from the Senate joined with a Republican in the House on a Medicare reform plan. And I'm happy to debate all these different plans as long as they have the ability to save Medicare and guarantee quality care for seniors. If we end up debating reforms on the one hand versus the status quo, the way things are now, Medicare as we know it on the other hand, we can't have that debate because the whole point is that Medicare as we know it, the status quo, Medicare as it is now, it's going bankrupt. So any discussion of the options has to be between the different options that save Medicare. The problem is there is only one plan that saves Medicare that has passed the House or the Senate or that has been proposed by the President, and that is the House budget plan from last year. And we will, I am confident, have a plan this year that we will vote on shortly that will propose changes to save Medicare. I want to thank the gentleman for joining us here tonight. Do you have anything else you want to add?

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I think ultimately the IPAB seeks to save money by simply cutting blindly without regard to innovation, without regard to structural reform, simply having a board of unelected bureaucrats ration care by making decisions on what Medicare will cover, won't cover, and by how much. Yes, we need to do what is fiscally right, but we need to keep our promise to our seniors; and the way that you do both is to reform Medicare structurally, not to blindly cut, leaving all the rules the same, just reducing what you are paying doctors. That's not the path. That's not the path. That is, in effect, rationing, and that will continue to exacerbate the problem of Medicare recipients being unable to find doctors who will take them. The answer is to take Medicare that has been so good to so many seniors and reform it and innovate and make changes that won't just cut costs by reducing the money paid but will actually change the rules so that we are able to get more value and more services for our dollar. And that's the approach we have to take.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his service here in the Congress and as a physician. I thank him for joining me here tonight. And I just want to reiterate what you said. Whatever solution we come up with has got to be patient-centered and respect the doctor-patient relationship. Patient-Centered, not government bureaucracy-centered--patient-centered. I thank the gentleman for joining me. I thank all of my colleagues for joining us here tonight. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Arkansas at Little Rock women's basketball team for securing a spot in this year's NCAA basketball tournament. The game that put them into the tournament was an exciting one. The Lady Trojans came back from a 22-point deficit in the second half against Middle Tennessee and went on to win by one point in overtime. With Taylor Ford's game-winning shot, the lady Trojans earned their second straight Sun Belt Conference tournament title and their third straight NCAA berth. Congratulations to the entire UALR community, to Coach Joe Foley for his leadership this championship season, and to the student athletes on this year's team. Thank you all for representing your school, the city of Little Rock, and our great State of Arkansas. Good luck.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Arkansas Children's Hospital, which is celebrating 100 years of service to Arkansas' children and families. Since it was founded in 1912 as an orphanage, Children's has grown to become one of the largest pediatric hospitals in the Nation. Children's is the only Level 1 pediatric trauma center in Arkansas, and they provide care to all 75 counties. For the past 3 years, it has been included in Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work For. Medical breakthroughs, intense treatments, unique surgical procedures, and forward thinking have led to Children's international reputation. This is due to Children's more than 4,000 employees. I congratulate Arkansas Children's Hospital on their contribution to the health and well-being of our children and families, and to Arkansas' economy.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I thank my friend from the Third District of Arkansas and appreciate his comments here tonight. I'd like to continue a little bit tonight talking about tax reform since Representative Womack was talking about some aspects of the President's proposal. I think most of us around here are certainly excited that the President has even started discussing fundamental tax reform. Unfortunately, I think that the President's proposal has a lot of aspects that would be burdensome to the businesses and the job creators that he purports to be trying to help, and so I don't think that it has much chance in the House or the Senate, and I think he knew that when he proposed it. But at least he is having that conversation. That's a start, that's a start. As we talked about, whether you are talking about tax reform, energy exploration, regulatory reform, our commonsense budgeting, making the Federal Government live within its means, all of those relate to jobs. They all are directly related to encouraging private sector job creation. We've been working on a highway bill recently. Infrastructure is a critical part of this equation. That's part of the spending our money wisely under the budgeting side of things because we need a strong infrastructure so that we can compete with other countries, continue to have economic development in this country. So that's a critical part of it. But with regard to the President's tax plan, it raises taxes at least a dollar for every dollar in tax cuts that he provides to simplify the corporate tax code. It creates a whole new category of taxes for our companies that do business overseas. And most glaringly, it doesn't do anything to address individual tax rates, the tax rates that you pay at home, I pay. And why is that important for job creation? Well, for a number of reasons. First of all, the code we have now is complex. It doesn't always reward hard work. In fact, sometimes it punishes it. But one of the real specific reasons why we must deal with the individual tax rates to grow jobs is because many businesses pay their taxes, particularly LLCs, sole proprietorships, partnerships, mom and pop businesses all around the country in Arkansas and in my district, they pay their taxes using the individual income tax brackets. So you can't just address corporate tax code, although the President's corporate tax ``reform'' has got a lot of tax hikes in it that will make our businesses, our job creators in this country, less competitive. But you can't just reform the Tax Code by dealing with corporate tax reform. You've got to look at individual tax reform, corporate tax reform across the board. You have to make it simpler, fairer, and flatter. Some of the terms that we've talked about, we've certainly advocated for that in our budget last year, and we are going to do it again this year. It's critical, not only for job creation by larger businesses but by small business, mom and pop businesses. So tax reform is a critical part of what we need to do to get jobs going. As I've talked about earlier, some of my colleagues talked about, there are a number of reforms that we have been pursuing for over a year now that relate directly to private sector job creation. As I indicated earlier, it's tax reform. It's regulatory reform. It's more energy development. It's living within our means. Individually, these issues may not have jobs in the title, but they are the columns, the supports, that hold up the private sector job building, if you will. I want to say a couple of things about the regulatory issue because I've just introduced a bill, H.R. 4078, Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act. Again, as a lot of us said, I'm not antiregulation. I don't know anyone that's against regulations across the board. What I'm against is the Federal Government failing to apply common sense when regulating. What I'm against are excessive regulations, overly burdensome regulations. I'll give you an example. I had a jobs conference down in my district in Little Rock at the Clinton Presidential Library. We had a jobs conference. We invited a number of job creators. It seems to me if you want to know what to do to create private sector jobs or encourage private sector job creation, you'd ask someone who had actually created them, folks from the private sector, experts on this issue. We invited them in and said, Hey, what's the biggest obstacle to job creation? We had Democrats and Republicans both. And we asked them just point blank, and the number one answer was regulatory uncertainty. What does that mean? Well, it means that folks have money that they might want to invest, but they hold on tight to that money because they're not quite sure what's going to happen. They're not sure whether we're going to get our debt under control or not. They're not sure how much ObamaCare, the President's health care law, is going to cost them. They're not sure whether the regulations that they've heard proposed by the EPA as potentially being proposed, they're not sure whether those are going to be implemented or not. It's just uncertainty everywhere. And I had someone say to me the other night, Well, there's always uncertainty. Yes, there is always uncertainty. If you're a farmer, there's uncertainty whether there will be enough rain for the crops that year. There will always be some uncertainty in life because we don't have crystal balls. I get that. But what we don't want is a Federal Government that needlessly creates additional uncertainty. You know, sometimes we say, I had enough problems before this came along. Well, that's what we're talking about. You have enough to deal with naturally. You have enough uncertainty as it is. You don't need the Federal Government creating more uncertainty. If you talk to community banks who have been impacted by the President's Dodd-Frank law, they've got a lot of uncertainty. They're having to hire new folks to comply with the law. What are the new regulations going to be? We don't know yet, just know they're coming. Don't know what they're going to be yet, just know they're coming and they're going to be burdensome. The same with the health care law. Here's a quote from, actually, a well-known Democrat businessman, commissioner on the Arkansas Highway Commission appointed by our Democrat Governor in Arkansas, former chairman of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission, John Burkhalter. He said at my jobs conference: Every project I look at now, I've got to wonder if I'm going to get to build it because, are the regulations going to stop me? I've got to admit that I pass on over 50 percent of the projects that I would like to do because of the burden, the hurdle of the regulations. Now, the President recently said in his State of the Union Address that he has approved fewer regulations in the first 3 years of his Presidency than his Republican predecessor did in his. Well, the President said that, sitting right here on the floor of the House during the State of the Union this year, so I think it deserves some attention. Well, is that true? If you just look at the numbers, it's true, if you just look at the number of regulations. But if you look at the number of what are called major regulations and the burden that it puts, the cost of the regulations, what this President has done far exceeds what we've seen before. The previous administration issued an average of 63 major regulations per year. This administration has issued an average of 88, an increase of 40 percent. Under President Bush, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs reviewed an average of 77 economically significant regulations biennially. These are the ones that really impact business. I'm not talking about a minor regulation here or there. We're talking about the ones that really impact job creators. Under President Bush, his Office of Regulatory Affairs reviewed about 77 every 2 years. Under this President, it's 125. Not quite doubled, but not far from it. If the administration maintains its current pace, it would add nearly $150 billion annually in new regulatory costs over 8 years. I'm going to yield to my friend from Virginia, but before I do, I just want to mention that I have proposed the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act, H.R. 4078. What it would do, it would basically freeze the introduction and progression of major regulations, those having an impact of $100 billion or more. It would freeze those with exceptions for emergencies, health issues, what have you. There are exceptions in the bill. But it would freeze them until our unemployment rate gets down to 6 percent to show that we're getting our footing, because what the regulatory environment is doing to our job creators is stifling their ability to create jobs. I'm going to yield now to my colleague from Virginia.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I came here to the floor tonight to talk with some of my colleagues and the American people about what I believe is the most pressing issue facing our country. A lot of us have been home working in our districts over the last week, seeing our constituents, speaking at local Rotary clubs, visiting with constituents in the office and around the district. It is clear to me that the top priority for the American people over the last year remains the same, and that is jobs. People back home are encouraged and are optimistic about the future, but they need some signs that jobs are increasing here in the United States. Jobs remain the number one issue. Since I got here a little over a year ago with some of my freshman colleagues, a lot of us have made jobs our sole focus. There are a lot of different things that we can do to encourage job creation. My focus has been on the private sector. Private sector job creation, in my view, is the way that we get our economy going again, not through government stimulus. We've tried that to the tune of about $1 trillion--almost $1 trillion--and it has not done what the President promised. It seems to me the best approach is to create an environment here in this country where the private sector can flourish, where people want to take risks, where they want to invest and compete with other countries. How do we do that? There are a variety of ways and that's why we're here tonight, to talk about some of these. I'm joined by some of my colleagues, and I think that they would agree that one of the ways that we can encourage the private sector to grow and create jobs is through fundamental tax reform. Another way is regulatory reform. Job creators around my district tell me what a lot of us know and that is that not regulation but overregulation, not regulation but excessive regulation, is a tax on businesses and it is a tax on job creators. So we need tax reform and we need regulatory reform. We need to further pursue our energy resources here in the United States. We need to construct, for example, the Keystone XL pipeline that the President first delayed and then denied. Thirdly, we need to further explore our energy resources. Fourthly, we need to live within our means as a government. That means dealing with our spending problem, our spending addiction, our debt, our trillion-plus-dollar deficit. If you were to ask me what is your plan, what would you do, what are you trying to do, what have you been fighting for over a year to try to encourage the private sector to grow jobs in this country with, I would say tax reform, regulatory reform, increased energy exploration and development here in the United States, and making the Federal Government live within our means. Those four things, if we can address them in bold ways, we can change the course of this country's fiscal situation and the economy and ultimately grow this economy and create jobs. I'm going to turn now and yield to the gentleman from Virginia if he'd like to comment on some of this.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I would like to comment on something the gentleman just said. I think it is a great point. A lot of times some of us think about this country and pollution here. I think what I hear you saying--it is a very good point--is that this is one world and we in this country through the processes and the regulatory structure that we have, we burn coal cleaner and we are a better steward of the Earth when it comes to using some of these traditional energy sources. What I hear you saying is--and I think it makes a lot of sense--if you believe that coal will not be used if we do not use it here, then that's not exactly accurate. Somebody is going to burn it. The question is: Do we do a better job with some of these traditional energy sources? Do we do a better job than other countries that will burn it if we don't? The Chinese can burn the same coal, yet regulate it in a way where they do a lot more damage to the environment. That brings me actually to the Keystone pipeline. The President first delayed it, then he denied it so that the extreme environmentalists would be happy with him. If you apply what you are talking about, it seems to me we would rather be refining the oil sands from Canada in this country instead of the alternative that Canada has talked about, which is shipping it to China for refining. Why? Because we refine cleaner, we refine safer, and we do a better job. Those oil sands are going to be refined. The issue is not if we don't refine them, no one will. The fact is they will be refined. The issue is do we refine them or do the Chinese refine them? I think what you're saying, and I wholeheartedly agree, we do a better job here.

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I want to comment a little bit on the all- of-the-above strategy that you were talking about. I'm an advocate for an all-of-the-above strategy. We've heard the President mention that, but we here in the House have been advocating for that. I have since I got here. That includes alternate energy sources, renewable energy sources, biodiesel, wind, solar. I'm for those things. But I'm also for the traditional energy sources and, in addition, nuclear. We have a clean, safe nuclear energy plant, power plant in Arkansas that we count on to provide safe, affordable energy. We also have coal plants, other sorts of energy sources. In my district, we make the windmill blades that go on these massive windmills. We also have Welspun Tubular in my district, in the Second Congressional District of Arkansas, and they've recently been in the news because there has been a lot of uncertainty about their future as a result of the President killing the Keystone pipeline, or denying the permit. The happy news that I have to report is that Welspun is doing some diversifying. They did have to lay some people off after the Keystone pipeline was delayed, but they're doing some diversifying so they can make some other sorts of pipe, and they're actually going to expand. I believe we will ultimately win the battle on the Keystone pipeline; and once we get the Keystone pipeline in full swing, the construction in full swing, then that will further help Welspun. So I'm for all-of-the-above, but I know that in my lifetime we are still going to be using a lot of these traditional energy sources. It's not an either/or. We can continue to pursue wind and continue to pursue solar and continue to pursue biodiesel and alternate energies, renewable energy sources, but at the same time pursue the traditional sources, particularly, natural gas. Natural gas is abundant and, best of all, it's American--and, in my case, it's Arkansan. We've got a lot of natural gas in my district and other districts in Arkansas. It is abundant and it is cheap. Where ethanol can increase the wear on a traditional car engine, natural gas can extend the life of that engine. I want to turn the conversation over to my friend from the Third District of Arkansas, Congressman Steve Womack. He's got a lot of natural gas in his district as well. Before I do, I just want to recap. We have jobs as our main goal. And there are pillars under that goal of jobs, and those pillars are: tax reform, regulatory reform, further energy exploration, and getting our spending under control so that we deal with our debt and we live within our means. Those are four pillars. They're not separate from job creation. They are a critical part of encouraging private sector job creation and giving certainty to job creators. Now I'd like to yield to my friend from Arkansas.