Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, according to a Federal report issued yesterday by the Energy Information Administration, natural gas being produced in the Marcellus shale region is growing faster than expected. Production has now reached 12 billion cubic feet a day. That is six times the production rate of 2009. The vast majority of production is coming from Pennsylvania, including the areas of the State that I represent, along with West Virginia.

To put this in perspective, the Marcellus alone produces more natural gas than Saudi Arabia. If the Marcellus were its own country, production would rank third in the world after Russia and the rest of the United States. This has led to record low gas prices. It is the reason companies are moving manufacturing back to the United States. It is why consumers have more money in their pockets after paying their bills. Also, Mr. Speaker, data released Monday by the EIA indicates that carbon-related emissions dropped by 3.8 percent from 2011 to 2012--to their lowest levels since 1994.

Mr. Speaker, domestic gas production is helping create a stronger American economy. It is helping us improve the environment. It is helping America remain competitive.

Mr. Speaker, plain and simple, the shutdown stalemate was unacceptable. The impasse should have been resolved weeks before October 1 when the House began passing funding bills through regular order. I argued that the strategy of defunding the health care law would not succeed, considering most of its programs are funded through mandatory spending. I did, however, believe that forcing the debate was necessary in order for Congress to actually start dealing with the challenges we face.

The President's health care law is, without a doubt, one of those challenges, Mr. Speaker. The law was sold as a way to lower insurance costs and expand access. But in reality, it is reducing access, breaking the budget, and harming consumers.

We forced the Senate to join us in addressing our larger budgetary issues--including debt and deficits--which undoubtedly will lead us back to a discussion of this flawed health care law.

This debate would never have taken place if Senate Leader Reid had his way. Considering the ongoing failures with the ObamaCare exchange, it is certainly a debate we will now be able to have. The American people deserve as much.

Mr. Speaker, prior to being elected to Congress, I worked 28 years as a health care provider. Through working to provide patients with the best possible care, one of the earliest lessons I learned was the principle of Do No Harm. The Nation would benefit greatly if those elected to public service followed this same principle. Unfortunately, this principle has been seriously violated throughout the government funding debate.

Mr. Speaker, the American people were harmed when President Obama failed to come to the negotiating table until 11 days after the shutdown occurred. The American people were harmed when the administration purposely sought to ``win'' the shutdown by causing as much pain as possible before seeking to reopen the government.

``It's a cheap way to deal with the situation. We've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It's disgusting,'' stated an angry Park Service ranger in Washington, according to The Washington Times.

This is not public service; this is a public injustice. It is time to do no more harm. It is time to end the politics and start solving problems. The American people deserve as much.

Mr. Speaker, in October of 2009, the Obama administration reversed the policies of both President Clinton and President Bush by committing the United States to U.N. Arms Trade Treaty negotiations. Since then, Members of the House and Senate have voiced their strong opposition.

I joined 130 of my colleagues in sending a letter to the White House to express my concern about the dangers posed to Americans' Second Amendment rights. In the Senate, which must only approve the treaty by a two-thirds vote, a bipartisan coalition of Senators remains united in opposition to its ratification.

Despite overwhelming opposition from Congress and the American people, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the treaty--a decision that is sure to have far-reaching consequences for American foreign policy and American sovereignty.

I have joined my colleagues in the House in sending another letter to the administration voicing our continued opposition to this misguided and dangerous policy.

I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to stand strong in their opposition.

Mr. Speaker, more Democrat leaders are finding their voices and courage to speak out against the continued shutdown of government services by Senate Majority Leader Reid. This was evident on Wednesday as District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray crashed a Senate Democratic press conference near the Capitol.

Mayor Gray took the opportunity to ask a simple and logical question of the Senate: Would the Senate vote on the House-passed measure to permit the District of Columbia to utilize tax revenues it collects to fund municipal services during this shutdown?

This measure, H.J. Res. 71, passed the House more than a week ago with support from Washington Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and other Democrats in the House. This targeted appropriations bill, like the many others the House has passed with bipartisan support, still languishes in the Senate.

When the Mayor approached Senator Reid to discuss the funding for the District of Columbia, the Senate Majority Leader replied: I am on your side, okay? Don't screw it up.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whose side the Senate Majority Leader is on, but it has not been on the side of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the 57 Democrats in the House who have consistently voted with Republicans to pass targeted appropriation bills to fund the Federal Government. I am disappointed that so many House Democrats have cast votes to support a continued shutdown.

Last night, the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat, confronted President Obama over the District's budget in a White House meeting with the House Democratic conference. Ms. Holmes Norton argued for Senate Democrats and President Obama to pass and sign the bill she supported with Republicans to permit the District of Columbia to utilize tax revenue it collects to fund municipal services during this shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is correct. It is long past time for the Senate leader to take up H.J. Res. 71 and all of the other bipartisan targeted appropriation bills that have been passed out of the House. By rolling the 11 House-passed bills into one, more than half of the partial government shutdown would be over. The American people deserve as much.

I thank the gentleman. I couldn't agree more. I would like to see a little farm-country sense brought to Washington. I think if that were leading the charge on a lot of fronts, we could resolve some of these issues we have been facing pretty quickly.

I am real proud, Mr. Speaker, to be here to talk about agriculture. When I was first elected in 2008, sworn in in 2009, one of my first picks that I asked for on committee assignments was Agriculture. Today, I'm proud to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee for Conservation, Energy, and Forestry on the Agriculture Committee.

I am proud to be from the Keystone State. I had a number of colleagues at that point in 2009 ask me why would I ever be on Agriculture when I am from Pennsylvania. The fact is, it is our number one industry in Pennsylvania. We have many commodities. We are one of the top providers and producers for the United States--and sometimes other parts of the world--in terms of our commodities that we raise and we grow. We can't speak enough about the importance of this farm bill.

There are a lot of reasons why we all, every colleague in this Chamber, should be supporting the farm bill. I have to say that there are fewer than, I believe, 100 of our congressional districts, out of 435, where we actually grow and raise the food to feed this Nation and much of the world. But the fact is every district has Americans that shake hands with a farmer at least three times a day every time they pick up a fork.

And so one of the principles that guides me, Mr. Speaker, in terms of my decisionmaking on any issue, I call it principle-based leadership. I always start and try to define what my principles are first. By the way, we have been working on this for 4\1/2\ years, actually. I remember having hearings. I was in the minority my first 2 years, and we had hearings. The first hearing was in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, specifically on the dairy title.

But the principles that have guided me since day one here in terms of agriculture is that America should always be the place where we have the most affordable, highest quality, and safest food supply anywhere in the world. So every decision I have made in supporting the development, the writing, and actually the passing of this farm bill has been to honor those three principles.

In addition to that, my good friend from Michigan talked about the importance of food security, and I agree with that. It's the biggest threat to our national security. And there are a lot of them out there, Mr. Speaker. I have got two kids that just got back from Afghanistan. I understand terrorist threats and threats to our financial situation, but the most imminent threat to our national security would be at whatever point we would begin to rely on another country for our food supply. This farm bill is the single most important piece of Federal legislation to make sure America has the most affordable, highest quality, and safest food supply.

There are a lot of things that this bill does. It repeals and consolidates more than 100 programs. This is a great example for the rest of government. This is exactly step one on how we begin to reduce our spending appropriately--looking at things that either don't work, things that are duplicative, things that are just not fulfilling the purpose for which it was designed.

It eliminates direct payments, which farmers receive regardless of market conditions.

I am not sure I would have supported past farm bills, to tell you the truth, that were passed before I came here; but I support this one because the reforms we have brought to the agriculture side and the nutrition side are very good. They are very good for the sustainability of our food supply and programs such as our SNAP program.

It streamlines and reforms commodity policy. We are also giving producers a choice in how to best manage

risk. It includes the first reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

Why is that important? Because the reforms we put in place, it preserves the future integrity of the food stamp program so that those in the future who need those programs, those men, women, and children who find themselves in poverty circumstances where they need that assistance, they will get it, if we protect the integrity of that program. It is only through these reforms that we are putting into place that we offer those protections so we will be assured that the food stamp program continues into the future to meet the needs of those who need.

It consolidates 23 conservation programs into 13, improves program delivery to producers, and saves more than $6 billion. That's an area of the farm title that I chair. The subcommittee has jurisdiction on conservation.

There are at least four reasons I can think of why that move is extremely important. Number one is cost. This country is facing significant debt, and so we have to be conscious and careful with our spending. We knew that the farm bill--the pie itself--would be smaller. So I think that is just one of the realities.

Second is the need. We are a country that feeds not just 311 million Americans, but we are feeding a lot of the rest of the world. And to allow land to sit idle under the context of some government-funded conservation program is just wrong. We don't want people to go hungry, and so putting more land that is appropriate back into productivity is a very appropriate thing to do; and we do that with this farm bill.

Third is effectiveness. The fact is that under the existing conservation programs, before the reforms we proposed, we have had perfectly sound, tillable, very productive land sitting idle and sitting fallow and receiving some type of government support under a conservation program to do that.

I have met young individuals I am very impressed with that want to go into farming that have never been in farming before. Some have been in farming, but they can't afford to go out and purchase acreage; and so they have to rent acreage. And they are competing under the existing conservation programs with the government; and in competing with the government, they can't do that. They just can't pay that.

All the parts of this farm bill have been well thought out and well prepared. I am very appreciative of the work that has been done on the part of land grant universities, the fact that we are strengthening the role of science and technology when it comes to agriculture. A lot of people talk about STEM--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. I like to talk about how agriculture is all about science and technology.

And I shout out to my own alma mater, Penn State University, which is a land grant university. Those universities help us advance that science and innovation and that technology.

I will finally talk briefly about we have probably one of the best forestry titles that we have ever had in this farm bill in maybe a hundred years. We've got great things in there in terms of making sure that timber is recognized and eligible for that biopreferred labeling.

Today, of all things, the original renewable resource of wood has never been eligible. You could buy a box of bamboo flooring--we don't grow bamboo in this country--and it has got a USDA stamp of approval, biopreferred. But if you buy a box of good hardwood cherry from the Pennsylvania Fifth Congressional District, it is not eligible. That changes in this farm bill that we passed out of the House and we are going to go to conference with the Senate on.

The categorical exclusion allows the Forest Service not to have to waste money during these NEPA analyses every time they do trail maintenance or clear power lines or just routine things that take money away from actively managing a forest in a healthy way.

Finally, the forest access road was a great amendment which basically reinforces that our forests are non-point sources of pollution. That goes a long way in terms of allowing our forests to be managed under State-adopted best practices.

And so I want to thank the gentleman for coordinating this Special Order on a subject that every American should be fully in tune to because of how important it is to have affordable, high-quality, and safe food. That is what our farm bill does.

Will the gentleman yield?

As chair of the nutrition jurisdiction, are the school lunch programs within title IV of the farm bill?

That was my reading. I have read the farm bill, yet I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk a lot about the changes to the reforms.

As I mentioned in my remarks, and you reaffirmed, we are trying to preserve this program for people who truly need it who meet the eligibility by filling out an application. But I guess I get confused when I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use rhetoric that they claim that somehow school lunches are impacted or the school breakfast program is impacted by our work on the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, ``Try and leave this world a little better than you found it.'' Those were the parting words of Robert Baden Powell, a soldier, writer, and founder of the world scouting movement. This was a message to all Scouts that was found among his papers after Powell's passing in 1941.

I am a scouter, Mr. Speaker. It is part of who I am, both as an American and an elected official proudly representing Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District. Scouter Powell's words today are part of scouting's principles, to always leave the campsite cleaner than when you found it. It is into service, serving others, and making the world a better place. They also ring true in the debate taking place now in Washington.

Today we are saddling future generations with mountains of debt. We have made promises we cannot keep. We are leaving the next generation worse off than our own. We face a Nation with grave challenges, challenges that aren't being addressed. The fact of the matter is that Congress has yet to deal with the real drivers of our debt, a large portion of which is health care costs.

Mr. Speaker, I don't care who won the White House or which party holds the majority in Congress. Why? Because not until we actually tackle the tough issues, the tough challenges, can we honestly say that Congress or the White House is doing what is right for the country. Right now we aren't making necessary progress, not on our budget and deficits, not on our long-term debt, not on bringing down the cost of health care. Though we have made some progress on spending, we are nowhere near where we need to be.

We are also leaving the health system worse than where we found it. Here are just two letters from my constituents that my office has received.

Tina, from Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, writes:

Please do not vote in any way to continue funding the

Affordable Care Act. It in no way improves the situation of

the average American. Yes, it provides another option for

health insurance, but the rates are no more affordable than

the private insurances; and therefore, if a person cannot

afford the private insurance, there is no way they will be

able to afford the government plan. In addition, the act

places further strain on the system and will cause the

shutdown of more hospitals, cause more physicians to leave

the system, and further crowd our Nation's emergency

departments.

Catherine from DuBois wrote:

I am fortunate to have good insurance through my employer.

However, I found out from them that they may provide a lesser

form of health care due to the no-Cadillac plan. They

understandably want to avoid a penalty for providing a good

plan. This seems unfair to me, as if we are being penalized

for working and having a good employer. If they are willing

to provide a good health plan, why should they be penalized

and why should they have to lessen our coverage? I am very

distraught about many layers of the health care plan that are

starting to come to light. I don't know if anything can be

done.

I cannot stand idle as Congress acts like it is solving problems when, in fact, it is failing to tackle the tough issues, health being one of them. Let me be clear that a government shutdown is unacceptable. However, each day we stall and fail to deal with these challenges, the worse it gets for the next generation.

The real debate needs to be about how we get our fiscal house in order and set a course of long-term job growth. Not until then will I be satisfied. It should be about addressing the challenges the people elected us to solve. Again, not until then will I be satisfied. It is about trying to ``leave this world a little better than you found it.''

Mr. Speaker, weeks ago, the administration reached out to Capitol Hill to continue budget negotiations. According to the National Journal:

Majority Leader Reid's office had a message for them: don't

do it. The White House listened. The summit was nixed. And no

serious talks have occurred since.

As the government shutdown stretches into its second week,

the White House has embraced Reid's hard-line, no-

negotiations stance--at least so far.

Unfortunately, hard-liner, non-negotiable posturing seems to be all the Senate Majority Leader knows.

Today, the House passed the Head Start for Low-Income Children Act, the 10th bipartisan stopgap funding bill to pass the House since the Federal shutdown began. The program remains a priority of the President; yet the White House just announced a veto threat on the bill--without a doubt, at the Senate Majority Leader's request. If this isn't a purely political move, I don't know what is.

I urge the Senate and the President to join 57 of my Democrat colleagues who are supporting the solutions being put forth by the House. The American people deserve as much.

Mr. Speaker, Senate leader Harry Reid has been the most ardent proponent of his party's no-compromise, no- negotiation stance. The leader has even been unwilling to discuss a compromise to prevent a prolonged government shutdown.

We are moving into the second week of this shutdown. In an effort to avoid being labeled as an ``obstructionist,'' the Senate leader has ordered a stance--at least rhetorically--and now claims there has already been compromise.

I would say to the Senate leader that there has been some compromise, but not in the Senate Chamber. The compromise has come from 57 Democrats who joined with the majority in the House to pass targeted appropriations bills that will fund key departments and programs.

Mr. Speaker, politics is often referred to as the ``art of compromise.'' It is essential to the legislative process and surely vital to a functioning democracy. I commend my 57 Democratic colleagues in the House who understand this, and I encourage more to join them as we continue to pass targeted appropriations this week.

Unfortunately, not until both Chambers start compromising will we be able to end this shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress was unable to reach agreement on a funding bill, the House acted immediately on the Pay Our Military Act. The bill passed the House on September 29, the Senate on September 30, and it was signed into law by the President that same day.

The Pay Our Military Act ensures that U.S. military personnel and active military Reservists will be paid and receive their allowances during this government shutdown.

Over the past week, the House put forward legislation to fund critical areas of government. We passed the Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act and the Honoring Our Promise to America's Veterans Act. Yesterday, we considered and passed the Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act; and, today, we passed another bill to fund the government.

These measures should have received the support of every Member in this Chamber. They are bills that should have passed the Senate and made their way to the President's desk. The President and the Senate should back these bills just as they did the Pay Our Military Act. Let's end this stalemate and move forward with the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, what the American people want from their elected representatives is very much the opposite of what this body has been delivering. Americans didn't want this shutdown, but here we are. They didn't want to lose the health care plans they have, but a very large number will in the future. They wanted lower health care costs, but insurance rates continue to escalate.

In Pennsylvania, the Children's Health Insurance Program provides good-quality, low-cost, market-based health care coverage. My constituents don't want their children forced out of this program and into Medical assistance, but that's now happening.

If the legislative process worked, we would have amended the so- called Affordable Care Act's fatal flaws. If it worked, the repeal of the medical device tax, which has bipartisan support in the House and Senate, would have been sent to the President's desk long ago. It hasn't. It remains chained up in the Senate leader's office.

My constituents know that I don't run all three branches of government. They know it's not my party in the White House or in control of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, what they do expect is for me to be their voice in Washington, to solve problems, fix government, and put forward solutions.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to take this time to thank our Capitol Police Sergeant at Arms staff, local D.C. police that provide for our safety every day. Our prayers go out to those injured and involved in today's terrible incident.

Second, Mr. Speaker, article I, section 9, clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that no funds shall be drawn from the Treasury without appropriations made by law. This is one of the few obligations that Congress must meet annually, and Congress has

failed to meet that most basic responsibility, which is why I've cosponsored the Government Shutdown Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, where I come from, we believe in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. While I continue to cast every vote on this House floor in order to keep the government open, it should be morally reprehensible for me or other Members of the body to collect a paycheck while this lapse of appropriations continues.

Unfortunately, this gesture will not reopen the government. As we continue to work towards ensuring that critical services are made available to our Nation and citizens, we remain hopeful that the Senate majority leader will see the error of his ways and begin negotiations with the House.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, one of my colleagues across the aisle said--very accurately--in quoting another elected official, that everything that gets done, gets done in the middle. I happen to believe that the only type of legislation that really passes and lasts is that which is done in a bipartisan way. That's why I commit in every bill that I author and I work on to reach across the aisle and find a friend to be the lead coauthor, and we build support on both sides of the aisle.

But, Mr. Speaker, based on the comments of my colleague and my own personal beliefs, I believe that's why this health care law is so flawed and has so many flaws in it, because it was not done in that spirit. It did not honor that principle. It was done unilaterally, in the most partisan way, and shoved upon the American people.

It is publicly acknowledged that it has flaws. The majority of Americans are demanding fixes of the publicly acknowledged flaws in the health care law--flaws that are acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats alike.

So instead of protecting perhaps the President's legacy, it's time to come together. Republicans are only seeking commonsense fixes to decrease costs and increase access, and fixes that are bipartisan and common sense.

Last night, I was very disappointed on this House floor. I voted to protect our veterans and to protect the citizens of the District of Columbia. Last night, we had a bill that would just allow them to use their own money--money that they pay in taxes to the municipality that they contribute through the parking meters and the fines and the fees that they pay and just be able to use their own money, and also be able to open our monuments and our parks to the American tourists. And our American heroes, our honor flights, are coming in each and every day, World War II, part of that Greatest Generation.

And yet it was defeated by votes from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for political purposes; and I know politics within the Beltway, but those were bipartisan solutions to help key individuals.

Mr. Speaker, it's troubling that the Senate leader has prevented consideration of even the most commonsense changes to the President's health care law, including one that has bipartisan support and previously passed his own Chamber. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle--in both parties--already have overwhelmingly rejected the medical device tax.

Last year, 37 House Democrats voted with all Republicans to repeal the tax, with a large bipartisan majority of 270-146. In March, the Democratic-led Senate voted 79-20 to repeal the tax.

The Senators from my own home State of Pennsylvania--one Democrat, Senator Bob Casey, and one Republican, Senator Pat Toomey--supported the bill. In fact, Senator Casey was its chief author and sponsor.

The medical device tax repeal was part of the House continuing resolution. It was blocked was consideration by Leader Reid. For the past 2 weeks, the House has worked to fund the government, prevent a shutdown, and protect the American people from the President's health care law. The Senate has decided to drag its feet and reject these reasonable proposals.

There is an appropriate way to conduct budget negotiations, and that is through the normal procedure of appointing a conference committee-- that's appointing negotiators, Republicans and Democrats alike, from both the House and the Senate--to get to the table and sit down and work out our differences. That is elementary civics. Unfortunately, the Senate leader has prevented regular order from proceeding.

Mr. Speaker, I was elected to represent my constituents and reform government, and I will continue fighting on their behalf. Congress must act now to end this shutdown and get to work on the many challenges facing this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, a government shutdown--no matter the duration--is a failure on a part of this institution to fulfill its most basic function.

The House has voted to fully fund the government and prevent this shutdown. The Senate dragged its feet and refused to pass anything for days.

We have also used every opportunity to protect Americans from the health care law's most harmful provisions. The Senate leader has been unwilling to allow an up-or-down vote on even the most reasonable change.

The law's medical device tax that is costing jobs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is supported by both Senators Casey and Toomey and previously passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 79-20. This was part of the House bill. It was rejected by Senator Reid.

Each and every day I hear from my constituents about how the health care law is either harming their economic situation or impeding access to quality and affordable care.

There is an appropriate way to conduct budget negotiations and that is through a normal procedure of appointing a conference committee to work out the difference. The House did that last night. We appointed our conferees. The Senate rejected even that measure earlier today.

The American people deserve better. It is time for the Senate leaders to lead.