Floor Statements

I would like to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for taking up this important and timely issue.

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare has proven to be the devastating law that many of us predicted. The recent debacle of the online exchange roll-out and the negative impact the law has had on our economy seem to be only the beginning of the problems we face. Every few weeks, we hear about more unintended consequences of the law, which are hurting the very people the President and the Democrats in Congress promised to protect.

The IRS considers volunteer emergency responders, including firefighters, employees for tax purposes. Under this employee designation, large

volunteer fire departments will be subject to the ObamaCare employer mandate. This will force them to provide health insurance to their volunteers or to pay a significant penalty. These unnecessary costs will cripple the strong volunteer fire community that protects western New York and the rest of the country.

In November of last year, I wrote a letter to the Acting Commissioner of the IRS, seeking a specific exemption for volunteer responders, but my office has yet to receive a reply. Since the administration has not corrected this disservice to America's volunteer EMTs and firefighters, we must act legislatively.

I urge the House to take up H.R. 3685 and address this issue as soon as possible. We must protect our volunteer emergency service responders so they can continue to protect us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak today.

I want to speak out about the importance of the EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act, legislation that makes up title II of the act.

The EPA is currently conducting a multiyear study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and groundwater. This legislation will greatly improve the value of the EPA study by increasing transparency and requiring it to include an objective risk assessment.

Hydraulic fracturing has been studied over and over again. My home State of New York is a prime example of how studies can stall job creation.

In New York, a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing was enacted in 2008. Now, 5 years later, that moratorium is still in place because the New York Department of Environmental Conservation is conducting a study on the environmental impact of fracking. Yet, no details of this study have been revealed, and a date of completion has yet to be announced.

Now the EPA is trying to do a similar study, which will only further delay a practice that many States currently allow and are benefiting from.

Fracking represents one of the greatest opportunities for strengthening our Nation's energy security and spurring economic growth. If New York would allow fracking, 520 shale gas wells could sustain 62,000 new and needed jobs.

This legislation will increase transparency and accuracy in how the EPA reports on the study of hydraulic fracturing and will get rid of the need for duplicative studies, like the one being done in New York.

Additionally, the risk assessment requirement will turn the study into a useful tool for both scientists and decisionmakers. By providing decisionmakers with the data and information they need in order to become comfortable with fracking, we can help create jobs and further our Nation's energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor to speak in support of the Government Shutdown Fairness Act, which I introduced last Friday. This legislation would stop Members of Congress from receiving a salary in the event of a government shutdown.

As Members of Congress, it is our job to keep the government running, and it is wrong that we would continue to get paid while programs for veterans, seniors, and many others are adversely impacted and those in the military are not paid.

This legislation is consistent with the 27th Amendment and would hold Member salaries in escrow until the end of this Congress. Salary and job performance are often tied together, and it should be no different in the government.

The American people deserve more from their Congress. We must be willing to put ourselves at the back of the line and put our constituents first during a government shutdown.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to promote the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically, the right of all citizens to freely express their religion.

This November, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway. The town of Greece, located just outside of my district in western New York, is accused of violating the First Amendment because the vast majority of volunteers who opened town meetings, they opened them with a prayer using Christian references.

Legislative and communal prayer has a rich tradition in this country and should not be curtailed by illegitimate fears of religious overreach in the United States. We must remain a Nation that does not force a religion on any person but is accepting of those who wish to profess their faith.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor to recognize the contributions of two great women from New York's 27th Congressional District.

Tonight, Helen Silliman and the late Flossie Bragg will be honored in South Wales for becoming the first female firefighters in Erie County 50 years ago.

It was back in 1963 when Helen and Flossie decided to join the ranks of what was then an all-male department. In doing so, they made history in not only South Wales, but all of Erie County.

As a result, Helen and Flossie became pioneers for women in the fire service in western New York, leading the way for women to join the ranks of volunteer fire companies, which is now commonplace.

Today, it is estimated there are 35- to 40,000 women involved in volunteer fire services across this great country.

I want to thank and acknowledge Helen and Flossie for helping to lead the way.

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

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Higgins from New York, for putting forth this amendment.

He and I stood together in Buffalo to talk about the adverse effects this proposal by the Army Corps of Engineers would have on the growth and maintenance of the Great Lakes, one of our Nation's greatest resources. But this issue is not specific to just western New York and it's not partisan. It's about preserving our Great Lakes.

Many of us don't know, but there are 4,500 miles of U.S. coastline along the Great Lakes, making it larger than both the Atlantic and Pacific coast combined. And among this huge length of coastline, there are many hundreds of projects. Many harbors that are critical to commercial navigation and recreation are in serious disrepair.

By moving contracting officers, those who are on the ground and require face-to-face contact with the companies doing the actual work, these projects will only fall further into disrepair. It won't save a dollar to move these employees to an office far from the site of a project. If you move these workers to Detroit or Louisville, some of them working on Buffalo or Chicago-area projects will have to be flown in and stay at local hotels at government expense. How can this possibly save money? Common sense tells me it's going to be more costly.

This amendment is simple, as it will prevent funds in this bill from being used for this proposal. It will help maintain the Great Lakes, which are a key economic driver to our national economy.

I hope my colleagues will support this bipartisan amendment that will ensure the Army Corps of Engineers will provide timely delivery on projects that reduce flooding, protect the shoreline, maintain navigation, and support water-quality efforts all along the Great Lakes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks National Small Business Week.

America's small businesses are the engines of job creation. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses employ almost half of all private sector employees. And depending on the year, small businesses can account for 80 percent of all new jobs created.

As a small business owner myself, I understand firsthand the challenges and hurdles business owners face on a day-to-day basis. As a Member of Congress, one of my top goals is to continue to push hard for commonsense policies that create the right kind of economic environment for small businesses to grow and hire more people--the exact policies the GOP-led House continues to advocate and advance.

This week, I am asking all small business owners in my district to complete an online survey about the economy and other issues impacting the small business sector by visiting my Web site, chriscollins.house.gov.

I want to salute small business owners as we take time this week to acknowledge your hard work and contributions.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment wrongly targets one of our best recruiting practices of the National Guard.

Motor sports sponsorship programs have helped the Guard add 400,000 new citizen soldiers since it was begun in 2007, many of whom were sworn in right at the track. Why would we want to cut something that's working?

Every season, the National Guard emblem is seen by millions on the hood of Dale Earnhardt, Jr.'s car, one of the most popular drivers during the last 10 years.

Since the National Guard is prohibited from advertising on broadcast television, motor sports sponsorships are one of the few ways the Guard can market to a national audience while still interacting with local communities.

This amendment takes a strong program proven valuable to our military readiness and arbitrarily cuts it for the sake of political posturing. This amendment does not save any money. It does not address any government excess or impropriety. It unnecessarily attacks our National Guard, and it shackles their best opportunity to recruit and retain the very best for national security.

As in the previous two defense authorization acts, I urge Members to hold strong and continue to oppose this amendment.

I rise tonight to speak on behalf of an amendment to be offered later. This amendment provides a sense of Congress to the Secretary of Defense and urges my colleagues to support this amendment, which will help maintain a strong National Guard and Reserve.

We've seen, time and again, whether it's Superstorm Sandy or other national catastrophes, the National Guard and the Reserve that have come to the Nation and helped support us in a time of need. September 11 it was the members of the Air National Guard that flew jets over New York City and this Nation's Capitol.

Many members of both the Guard and Reserve have fought and died for this country in Iraq and Afghanistan. Time and again we have called on them to support us, and this proposed amendment just urges the Secretary of Defense to make sure that we send the message that he should make every effort to ensure our military Reserve and National Guard forces are fully manned and fully funded to help the United States fulfill its longstanding commitment to the unyielding defense of this country.

Mr. Chairman, the brave men and women who fill the ranks of both the National Guard and Reserve deserve nothing else.

Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor today to share real-life examples from my district concerning the growing trend happening all across this country because of ObamaCare.

My office recently received a call from Colden Repka, a 23-year-old from Attica, New York. Colden works 30 hours a week for a manufacturer while carrying a full college course load. Colden's boss recently told him his weekly hours would be cut from 30 to between 20 and 25 in order to avoid the ObamaCare employer mandate, despite Colden staying on his parents' health insurance policy.

Just last week, Richard Markel from Clarence, New York, called my office with a similar concern. Richard is a man just trying to make some extra money for his family. His regular 32 hours per week are being reduced to less than 25 to avoid the perverse mandates of ObamaCare.

Madam Speaker, Americans want to get back to work. Unfortunately, ObamaCare's onerous regulations are hitting employees in ways many did not expect, and it's just the beginning. This country is realizing that ObamaCare is a train wreck. Just ask Colden and Richard.

Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor today to honor all of those who died in fighting for our country. This coming Monday, this Nation will observe Memorial Day, a day set aside to pay tribute to the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in defense of our freedom.

As Members of Congress, so much of what we do on behalf of our constituents touches the military in some way. Recently, my office secured a new Silver Star Medal for the late John Chase, a World War II veteran from Batavia, New York.

Drafted into the Army, Mr. Chase fought bravely in the Battle of the Rhineland in 1945, a critical victory for the Allied Forces. Last month, as he grew increasingly ill, Mr. Chase's family reached out to my office for help in securing a new medal. In the process, we discovered Mr. Chase also qualified for the Bronze Star, which he had never received. We were able to present the medals to Mr. Chase's family on the day he passed, allowing them to be properly displayed at his funeral.

I want to thank Mr. Chase posthumously for his distinguished service and pay my respects to all Americans killed in wars both present and past.

I want to thank the gentleman for holding this special session tonight.

Mr. Speaker, the American public is often concerned there is not enough agreement in the Halls of Congress. Well, I am pleased to report there is growing agreement among both parties and in both Houses of this Congress that ObamaCare is truly a train wreck, as recently described by Democrat Senator Max Baucus. As this massive piece of legislation is being implemented, the negative impact it is and will have on our economy is becoming clear:

ObamaCare guts the funding for Medicare Advantage to help cover its growing price tag. So, for all those seniors out there, like my 86- year-old mom, who are happy with the coverage they receive through Medicare Advantage, I have news for you: you can't keep your existing plan, as promised, because ObamaCare effectively ends it.

What the administration could not raid from other sources to pay for ObamaCare it makes up in new taxes. Just last week, as chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Health and Technology, I heard from small business owners and advocates about the impact the health insurance tax will have on the bottom line of America's small businesses. The amount of that tax will be $8 billion in 2014, increasing to $14.3 billion in 2018, and will increase based on premium trends thereafter.

Supporters of ObamaCare will say these fees are supposed to be paid by the health insurance companies; but common sense, substantiated by independent studies, tells you the insurance companies are passing these costs directly on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. To avoid the taxes and fees, companies are cutting jobs, not hiring, and are reducing employee hours to stay under ObamaCare thresholds, all this at a time when national unemployment remains embarrassingly high.

ObamaCare is built on the premise that the young and the healthy will pay to insure the old and the sick. Well, guess what? The young and the healthy are too smart to have their pockets picked. Knowing they can't be denied coverage down the road, the young and the healthy are going to drop out of the insurance market and instead pay the $95 penalty and their out-of-pocket medical expenses. They know this approach will be far, far cheaper in the end than paying thousands of dollars for an individual or a family plan under ObamaCare. It's like not buying collision insurance on your new car because you know you can get it after you've been in a wreck.

When attempting to defend ObamaCare, its supporters like to tout all those ``free'' things that ObamaCare offers the American people. That sales pitch crystallizes what is wrong with ObamaCare and the tax-and- spend policies this town is famous for. Nothing is free in this world. For every free service ObamaCare offers, someone out there in America is paying for it with his hard-earned money; or, worse yet, we'll just add a few more bucks onto our staggering debt to cover this so-called ``free'' service.

This country can't afford ObamaCare figuratively or literally. ObamaCare must be repealed. It needs to be replaced with commonsense, cost-effective ways to improve health care in this country.

I want to thank both the gentlewoman and gentleman from Missouri for their comments.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this afternoon to stand in support of the Second Amendment. I also proudly stand here in support of all the law-abiding gun owners in New York's 27th Congressional District and all across our country.

As a father and a grandfather, the recent violent tragedies in our country have left my heart heavy. But as a gun owner with a carry permit, I proudly carry my dad's Ithaca .45 from World War II. As a Member of Congress representing thousands of law-abiding gun owners, I join my colleagues and say we refuse to allow these tragedies to be used for political gain.

These recent crimes should not be used as a pretense to weaken our constitutional rights. And law-abiding citizens should not fall victim to additional laws and regulations which have no impact on reducing crime.

Let us not kid ourselves. What was recently proposed in the Senate and what has recently become law in my home State of New York would have done nothing to prevent the Newtown or Christmastime shootings of firefighters in Webster, a community just outside my district.

I strongly support the Second Amendment and the right of an individual to protect themselves and their family. The actions of depraved killers should not punish law-abiding gun owners. And the actions of this Congress should not pick away at the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 97, H. Res. 146, On Ordering the Previous Question, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 98, H. Res. 146, On Adoption of the Rule, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 99, Journal, On Approval of the Journal, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

personal explanation