By: Reps. John Rutherford (R-FLA.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Michael Bost (R-Ill.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), Jack Bergman (R-Mich.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.), Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), and Mimi Walters (R-Calif.) Would you trust a doctor who had their license revoked, had a history of sexual misconduct, and had on numerous occasions engaged in unethical, unprofessional behavior? Obviously not. Why, then, would we ever put someone like that in a position to care for the men and women who served our country? In December, we were shocked to learn that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had hired medical providers who have been accused of all of the above offenses. These reports clearly indicate that the VA's hiring of many of these providers was not only appalling, but also violated federal law. That is why we led a bipartisan letter of 30 members to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ask how these hires were cleared and what actions have been taken to prevent this from happening again. In response to that letter, then-Secretary David Shulkin said that the VA was conducting a review of all 165,000 active licensed providers at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), starting with a more thorough review of a subset of 77,000. Both reviews were expected to be completed by March 2018, but now we are learning that they have been pushed back even further to June. To date, nine providers have been fired. No disciplinary actions have been taken against the professional standards boards that cleared these hires. This is simply not good enough. Every day that the VA continues this review is another day we risk the health of the heroes who have served our country. The VA needs to prevent this from happening in the first place, not just carry out a five-month long review. Congress and the VA need to concentrate on making the department an environment that will attract the best workers so veterans get the best care possible. We see the great work many are doing in VA facilities across the country, and we owe it to those employees and our veterans to strengthen the hiring and retention processes. This includes scholarships, loan repayment, and other factors providers consider when making the decision of where to work. We, as representatives, need to hold VA leadership accountable for their actions. These problems should never have arisen in the first place, and we will continue to shine a light on these issues until the VA learns to step up and fix their own immense problems. We will continue to work with our colleagues in the Congress to ensure our brave veterans are receiving the timely access to quality care from qualified providers that they deserve, and it is our sincere hope that the VA will do the same.

By KEVIN MCCARTHY, ED ROYCE, MIMI WALTERS, TOM MCCLINTOCK and STEVE KNIGHT Reading the news and watching television, one gets the impression that our Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is stealing from the poor to feed the rich, all while pushing old, sick grandma off a cliff. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- fearing the new year is the beginning of the end times -- even called the bill "Armageddon" and the "end of the world." If these attacks don't strike you as at least slightly bizarre, then consider this a trigger warning: the truth below might not be the cup of Kool-Aid you're used to. Let's get some things straight. A family of four in California earning $60,000 or less a year will pay no federal income taxes. That same family earning $90,000 will see their federal income taxes fall by 22 percent, a tax cut of over $1,000. In our districts the median family of four will see a tax cut of up to $2,500 and the average single individual will see a tax cut of $1,400 to $1,900. But California is an expensive place, especially in our cities, which is why a family of four earning $200,000 will see a tax cut of over $1,500. If you notice a trend, you're right. Just about everybody is getting a tax cut -- single or married, kids or no kids, rich or poor. Not only that, but businesses across the country are giving bonuses and increasing retirement funding for their employees while utility companies throughout the U.S. are lowering rates for their customers. The news gets better. Our legislation cuts the small business tax rate to the lowest it's been since the 1930s while reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, below the international average of 22 percent. That incentivizes people to start businesses in America, move businesses to America, and hire Americans. We need those businesses. California's unemployment rate is 4.9 percent, above the national average of 4.1 percent. Meanwhile, our labor force participation rate is 62.5 percent, far below rates before the recession. According to a report by Measure of America accounting for everything from median earnings to standard of living, California is the single most unequal state in the country. Facing an overwhelming tax burden, companies like Toyota and Carl's Jr. have already fled California. Simultaneously, record numbers of Californians are moving to low tax states like Texas. The people of California can't afford high state taxes that shut out businesses, destroy jobs, and deprive Californians of much-needed income. Despite this, Gov. Brown and Sacramento Democrats just increased California's gas tax again -- a move that hits the poor the hardest -- even while falsely accusing our tax plan of raising taxes. Unfortunately, the disinformation campaign of hypocritical Democrat leaders and much of the media is sowing fear in the same people the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is going to help. The left-leaning Tax Policy Center conservatively estimates that 80.4 percent of Americans would get a tax cut in 2018, seeing an average of $2,140 more in their paychecks. Even so, only around a quarter of Americans think their taxes will go down while around 50 percent think they will go up. The only explanation for this disconnect between perception and reality is the astounding degree of dishonesty from the bill's detractors. So let's refute some of the most common critiques. Folks are worried that by limiting the state and local tax and home-mortgage deductions, Californians will pay more. Our legislation keeps the SALT deduction for up to $10,000 and the home-mortgage interest deduction up to $750,000 in loan value for new mortgages, and every time we limited or eliminated deductions or loopholes, we directed those savings to taxpayers. That's why even with changes to these deductions, the average tax cut in California is over $2,000. Critics also portray the elimination of Obamacare's individual mandate as taking health care away from the American people. However, if people don't buy bad insurance when the government stops forcing them to buy it, they haven't lost insurance; they've regained freedom. Finally, this bill is attacked as a tax cut for the rich at the expense of the poor. We do cut taxes at every single income level -- for high-earners as well as everyone else. But this attack preys on resentment the American people don't have. We don't begrudge others getting a tax cut that we get too because we know we can all rise together. As this tax plan is implemented, working Americans should ignore the spin, check their paychecks, and see that they keep more of their money, businesses and jobs coming back, and American workers are getting a raise. No matter what the prophets of apocalypse say, the world isn't ending. Federal taxes are going down because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and especially if Sacramento follows suit and reduces state taxes, Californians can look forward to better days ahead.

By Mimi Walters While generating nuclear power is one of the cleanest and most efficient forms of electricity, the process creates what is known as spent nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, spent nuclear fuel currently sits idle across our state: 228 tons isolated at the Rancho Seco site, 29 tons at the decommissioned Humboldt Bay site, 1,490 tons stored at the still operating Diablo Canyon site, and most concerning is the 1,800 tons at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station along the Pacific coastline and San Diego Freeway. This used fuel was originally intended to be sent to the middle of the Nevada desert at Yucca Mountain for disposal. However, 35 years after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted and 30 years after Congress designated Yucca Mountain as the first site for a permanent geological repository, this material still sits just off our California beaches. The time to fix this problem is now. For 35 years, ratepayers in California and around the country have paid a tax on electricity generated from commercial nuclear power plants into the Nuclear Waste Fund to study, license, and ultimately construct and operate Yucca Mountain. Californians have contributed over $2 billion into this fund. Unfortunately, the fund was never managed as Congress had intended, creating challenges to successfully implement a nuclear waste management program. After the previous administration determined the Yucca Mountain project was "unworkable" it illegally tried to take it off the table and left ratepayers in California and around the country holding the bag. At Yucca Mountain, spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste -- waste generated from maintaining our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as from submarine and aircraft carrier propulsion systems -- would be permanently isolated 1,000 feet underground in the middle of the Nevada desert. In 2013, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined the Yucca Mountain site could safely store spent nuclear material for up to one million years. The study met the high regulatory standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency and found that the annual release of radiation from the mountain would be about equal to a cross-country airplane flight. Despite the exceptional safety standards and the billions of dollars ratepayers across the country have paid, the project was sidelined for the previous seven years. Thankfully, the Energy and Commerce Committee -- of which I am a member -- has been hard at work on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017. The NWPAA reforms the broken financing system to protect ratepayers in California and in the 121 communities across 39 states that have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund and currently have spent nuclear fuel sitting in their states. Recently, the committee overwhelmingly passed the NWPAA by a vote of 49-4. This was the result of a bipartisan agreement to find common ground and break the impasse on our nation's nuclear waste management policy. This bill allows for the first time a new private interim storage initiative to move forward. It would allow the Department of Energy to contract with a private entity to store spent nuclear fuel on a temporary basis while the federal government continues to work on the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. In doing so, the legislation would provide a path for private companies to partner with the federal government once those companies are fully licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to safely store spent nuclear fuel and as long as the federal government maintains work towards completing next critical step for our nation's disposal program. This is a win-win for Californians who would have a new pathway to move spent fuel out of the state and finally get an up-or-down decision on the viability of the Yucca Mountain project, which Californians have already paid for. In 2012, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station fully ceased operations. The federal government needs to fulfill its obligation and take ownership of this used fuel. It's time we get this spent nuclear fuel off our beaches. This bill is the most viable solution to quickly and safely getting this nuclear material out of our state, while not kicking the can to our children and grandchildren to finish the permanent disposal facility. I stand ready to work together in a bipartisan way to ensure that the spent nuclear fuel scattered throughout the country is safely and responsibly managed.