Steven Palazzo

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Hall of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and if the gentleman is prepared to yield back, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4158. This legislation will resolve a conflict that has emerged within NASA over the last decade regarding the ownership of artifacts from the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Left unresolved, as Chairman Hall pointed out, astronauts, their families, and those to whom they transferred, donated, or sold artifacts may not have clear title to them. If NASA persists in its efforts to reacquire these items that were initially received by the astronauts 40 years or more ago, significant financial consequences could befall them. In the 1960s, as NASA began the Mercury program, agency managers allowed astronauts to carry a small number of mementos in their spacecraft. As the spacecraft became larger and larger and mission duration increased, the agency's policy evolved to allow astronauts to retain expendable personal gear such as shaving equipment, undergarments, notebooks, and expendable space suits. During the lunar landing phase of the Apollo program, the policy further changed to allow astronauts to retrieve from the lunar lander certain pieces of hardware that would have been destroyed had it remained in the lander. With full knowledge and consent of program managers, the astronauts were allowed to fly personal mementos as well as retain certain pieces of equipment. It is incredible to me that NASA now wants to penalize those who acted in good faith by attempting to retrieve these items. H.R. 4158 is a necessary bill to bring closure to the debate and uncertainty regarding ownership of a small class of space artifacts. I urge all Members to support this legislation.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I'm a CPA by trade. I've spent many years in my former life wading through volumes of Tax Code trying to ensure my clients followed every last letter of the law while also trying to ensure they don't get stuck paying more taxes than they owe. But the American people and the people of south Mississippi don't need a CPA to tell them that we need a simpler, fairer, and flatter Tax Code. Last week, the U.S. Senate sent a strong message when it voted to raise taxes on small businesses and families. In south Mississippi alone, the proposed tax hikes would increase taxes by an average of $2,200 per family. That's a total of more than $723 million more that south Mississippians would have to pay. In addition to that extra tax burden, a recent study from Ernst & Young shows that we could lose as many as 710,000 jobs, and wages could decrease by almost 2 percent. Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm pretty sure that the American people and the people of south Mississippi don't need a rocket scientist to tell them that these tax hikes are the last thing we need right now. That's why the House stepped forward yesterday and passed legislation to stop the tax hike, and that's why we're committed to continue working on tax reform to make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and flatter for all Americans.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, President Obama's failed economic policies have brought us more than 41 months of consecutive record unemployment. My State of Mississippi and the Nation are starving for jobs. In Mississippi, we like jobs and we want more jobs, not less. However, this President has been AWOL, absent without leadership, when it comes to protecting and providing for our economic and national security, both of which are under assault by this President and the ``do nothing'' Democrats in the Senate. What keeps me up at night is the fear of sequestration. Sequestration, if allowed to go into effect, is irreversible, irresponsible, and will cost America 1 to 2 million jobs. Sequestration will affect every community in every State in the Nation for the worst. Our economic and national security are symbiotic of one another. We must have a strong economy to provide for our national defense, and a strong military to protect our economy. The American people do not want this administration to harm our economic and national security any more than it already has. Stop sequestration now. I say to the President, it is time to lead, follow, or get out of the way. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chair, H.R. 4078 would help to rein in the nontransparent and undemocratic activities of this Administration. There is one agency that personifies runaway regulations: the EPA. I'd like to highlight a backdoor power grab being pursued by EPA that demonstrates the need for this bill. As a member of the Science Committee, I'm concerned that this Agency is trying to expand its power under the guise of ``sustainability.'' Without any legal authority or input from Congress, EPA has committed to ``incorporate sustainability principles into [their] policies, regulations, and actions,'' has signed MOUs with DOD and the Army on sustainability, and has spent untold taxpayer dollars on UN conferences in Brazil and multiple National Academy of Sciences reports on this topic. What is sustainability? That's a good question, and apparently it means whatever EPA wants it to mean. For example, one EPA website on this topic lists 16 different definitions of ``sustainability.'' Based on the track record of this Agency and this Administration, I fear that this new policy is designed to expand federal power to enact more billion dollar regulations without the consent of Congress. This bill will help control arbitrary and cumbersome federal regulations on job creators in my district in south Mississippi.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I come before you today not just as a Congressman from Mississippi's Fourth Congressional District, but also as a Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf War and the only Member of this body that is currently serving as a noncommissioned officer in the National Guard, simply to say that one of the biggest threats to our national security that we face as a nation is the crippling defense cuts that would put our men and women in uniform at physical risk and more than 1 million Americans out of work. It will harm folks like the 857th that I had the privilege to send off this weekend as they are about to deploy to Afghanistan, or the more than 170,000 warfighters from all across the United States who have come through the gates of Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center as part of the global war on terrorism. Today, once more, I join my colleagues in asking the President and the Senate Democrats to come to the table, consider the solutions we've already brought forth, or propose your own. The American people deserve answers on how these defense cuts will affect them, and American soldiers deserve leadership from their Commander in Chief.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Just this past weekend, I had the great honor and privilege to send over 150 young men and women off to Fort Bliss to prepare for their final training to go overseas. This is the 857th Engineering Company. Their mission is horizontal construction, which is pretty much they're going to be clearing roads. As we know, that's one of the most dangerous missions in Afghanistan. Now, I was too busy shaking hands and talking to families and others to notice what I would probably have seen in the parking lot, and that would have been a lot of bumper stickers. On those bumper stickers, there wouldn't be faces or political advertisements--of course, I wish there would be some--but it was more numbers: number 3, number 11, number 24, number 14. Most likely, there would have been a few number 88s out there, which is the car Dale Earnhardt drives for NASCAR. So with that, right now there is absolutely no reason this Congress should be telling the Department of Defense how and where to spend money on recruitment. Sport sponsorships have continually been a major source of recruitment and provided a great deal of return on investment. The only other option is to spend more on recruitment and retention bonuses. As my colleague just mentioned, when they fall below a certain number, they spend billions of dollars, and we're not talking about billions of dollars. So this actually saves taxpayers' money so we can continue to find the young men and women to serve in our Nation's military. As it currently stands, the National Guard cannot advertise on television, which significantly limits their opportunities to reach the audience that they want to reach. This is an effective program that remains a key tool for our National Guard and other branches of our military services. This bill is already taking serious cuts from advertising and marketing budgets for the Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and National Guard accounts. They have all been cut significantly already before this amendment. There is no reason why we should continue to tie their hands by cutting more funds from the budget. These sponsorships provide the ability to market and create branding opportunities and familiarity with the service branches in areas where market research shows that the target audience spends its time. For example, data shows that NASCAR fans are very large, up to 70 million-- I think that's a low number--very patriotic, very pro-military fan base, and are extremely loyal to sponsors of teams and drivers. This is exactly who we want joining our U.S. military. Madam Chair, we are currently dealing with very serious cut to our military because of sequestration. This is not the time or the place to be cutting the tools that our military is using to recruit the very best, patriotic young people who want to serve our Nation in the military. The military is maximizing their resources to fulfill their mission at home and abroad. If this wasn't successful, they wouldn't be doing it. I ask that my colleagues oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the earlier amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley). The gentleman from Illinois had an amendment to cut $988 million from the Navy's DDG-51 program. The members of the House Armed Services Committee have carefully considered this shipbuilding program. We have met for months in the Seapower Subcommittee and discussed it thoroughly with Navy leadership. The DDG-51 is the Navy's preeminent surface combatant. It can conduct multiple missions, including ballistic missile defense, and it has proven itself in almost every theater in which it has operated. This ship has been authorized with a multiyear procurement strategy for DDG-51s, which is an important, cost-saving measure that the Navy has used in multiple situations to save money for the taxpayer. This is one of the most successful shipbuilding programs ever in the United States Navy because it is one of the best built and best values for the taxpayer and requires a fair and open competition for contracting. Right now, our Navy has the lowest shipbuilding totals in generations, and many predictions are that the number is only going to shrink further. As we pivot to the Pacific, we cannot afford to be cutting additional ships from our budget. It is extremely important not only to our economic security, but also our national security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chair, I raise a point of order against section 8121 of the bill.

Mr. PALAZZO. Section 8121 constitutes legislation because it requires that the Secretary determine what qualifies as ``semiprofessional,'' ``a sporting event,'' and ``mixed martial arts.'' These are not terms that current law requires that the Secretary know, thus, imposing these determinations upon the Secretary violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Congressman Reed. I appreciate you organizing this Special Order tonight. It's a very important issue, not just to my constituents back in the State of Mississippi, the Fourth Congressional District, but to all Americans. So thank you for doing that. Over the past 2 years, our Nation has engaged in the debate of the future of our country and the future of health care reform. When the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the health care law as a tax, they never meant to send a message that this is a good policy. Their ruling did not change the fact that it is bad for our job creators, which are our small businesses. It's bad for families, and it's bad for seniors. They weren't putting their stamp of approval on the enormous burden of regulations and tax hikes that this bill brings. They weren't making a statement in favor of a law that takes health choices out of the hands of individuals and doctors and that places more control in the hands of government bureaucrats. What they did when they ruled on this law was reaffirm that this is, indeed, a multibillion dollar tax. The Court reaffirmed that it is, indeed, unconstitutional to force a massive Medicaid expansion upon States like Mississippi, which cannot afford it. Finally, the Supreme Court reaffirmed for myself and my colleagues and for millions upon millions of Americans that there is a need to fully repeal this law. So today, with this vote, we are listening to the majority of the American people who do not want this law, and we renew our commitment to them to bring real step-by-step commonsense solutions that Americans want and provide them with the access to the care they need from the doctor they choose and at a price that they can afford.

Mr. PALAZZO. Well, Congressman, there are so many bad things about this bill. We could spend a lot more than an hour talking about it. The American people have had over 2 years to fully digest the bill that was crammed down their American throats by the 112th Congress. What the Republican House is doing is we are not going to make the same mistakes that they did. We had a President, we had a Speaker of the House, and we had a Senate that ignored the pleas and cries of the American people. Nonetheless, they passed a 2,700-page bill. There is nothing good in a 2,700-page bill. They did it under the cover of darkness. The former Speaker of the House said, ``You have to pass it before you'll know what's in it.'' We're not going to make those same mistakes. We're not going to repeat their failures. What we're going to do is we're going to listen to the American people. We're going to take their solutions so that we can address the care that they need from the doctor that they choose and at a price that they can afford. There's some good things that are going to be coming forth. So I don't understand. Our colleagues on the other side are saying, Hey, this bill isn't perfect, but let's keep it and tweak it. There's no small fix to this bill. It is garbage. We have to throw it out and start over. But we're going to listen to the American people. And I think that's where they went wrong. We are even going to offer, I believe, our colleagues, as we've done in almost every bill, allow them to bring amendments to the floor, where in 2009 they did not allow one Republican amendment to the bill. So the old saying: If you're ignorant of the past, you're doomed to repeat it. Well, we've learned from our history, and we're going to make right for the American people on health care. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman for bringing this bill to the floor, and for all the hard work of our conferees in getting us to this point. Today, I rise before you to remind this body one last time of the importance of Gulf Coast recovery and the importance of passing the RESTORE Act. Less than a year ago, a small group of Gulf Coast legislators came together with big support from their communities, and a mission to make the Gulf Coast whole. This was no small effort. But it is the least we could do to show our support once more to all those affected by the single largest manmade disaster in our history. I am proud to have been a part of this landmark legislation. I want to thank all those who worked so hard with us to make this happen--from my Gulf Coast colleagues to local leaders, business interests to conservation groups. There were many who said this could not be done in an election year, with so much competing for time on the legislative calendar. But we knew how important it was to pass this bill. We did not give up because we knew that restoring and replenishing the Gulf Coast is more than just a responsible decision; it is the right thing to do.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for the people of Mississippi's Fourth Congressional District and it's a good day for all the people of the Gulf State. Because today, with passage of the RESTORE Act, we give these States the tools they need to continue vital economic and environmental recovery. Less than a year ago, a small group of gulf coast legislators came together with big support from their communities and a mission to make the gulf coast whole. This was no small effort, but it is the least we can do to show our support once more to all those affected by the single largest man-made disaster in our history. I am proud to have been a part of this landmark legislation. I want to thank all those who worked so hard with us to make this happen, from my gulf coast colleagues and House leadership to local leaders, business, and conservation groups. There were so many who said this could not be done in an election year with so much competing for time on the legislative calendar. But we know how important it was to pass this bill. We did not give up because we knew that restoring and replenishing the gulf coast is more than just a responsible decision: It is the right thing to do.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, on May 30, 2012 I was unavoidably delayed due to a mechanical problem during travel causing me to miss rollcall vote 295 on H.R. 4201, the Sevicemember Family Protection Act. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, on May 30, 2012, I was unavoidably delayed due to a mechanical problem during travel causing me to miss rollcall vote 294 on H.R. 5651, the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, on May 30, 2012 I was unavoidably delayed due to a mechanical problem during travel causing me to miss rollcall vote No. 296 on H.R. 915, the Jamie Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, once again we find that good legislation that was passed by the House has been taken hostage by the Senate. As we approach yet another deadline on the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, the Senate is refusing to take up our long-term solution. Ten months ago, we passed a 5-year bill that would bring much needed certainty and stability to the people depending on this program. The short-term package before us today fails to provide a long-term solution to a very real long-term problem. NFIP provides flood insurance to more than 20,000 communities across this Nation, including more than 50,000 families in my district. Many of my constituents in Mississippi are still dealing with the effects of Hurricane Katrina. They have experienced record flooding in recent years, and we are fast approaching another hurricane season. We have no other choice. We must act now. It is out of necessity that I support this short-term extension, but we must remain focused on a longer-term solution for the sake of those in the Gulf Coast States and high-risk flood areas. They depend on the National Flood Insurance Program. Between now and the next time this extension expires, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to revisit and embrace H.R. 1309, our 5-year solution.