Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan Congressional Natural Gas Caucus convened a congressional field hearing on Friday at the Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. I am proud to have joined Representatives Gene Green, Tom Reed, and Tom Marino to hear from State and local officials and leaders on the economic impacts of natural gas production in the Marcellus shale region. The hearing offered an insightful look at the benefits of the 3,551 gas-producing wells in Pennsylvania.

One of those benefits is jobs. Today, 30,752 people in Pennsylvania are employed in the natural gas industry. This is a 164 percent increase since 2009. The average salary is $82,643. Additionally, 214,302 are employed in ancillary industries, a 7.9 percent increase since 2009. In just two rural northern Pennsylvania counties, testimony revealed an increase of 4,832 jobs and 226 businesses between 2006 and 2012. Most importantly, 80 percent of those jobs are now filled by local workers.

Mr. Speaker, the responsible production of natural gas is producing energy security and an economic impact that surpasses all expectations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1911, the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1911.

President Obama, as part of his budget request, proposed returning student loan interest rates to a system of market-based variable rates tagged to the 10-year Treasury note.

As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I can attest the committee staff and members worked in good faith to meet the President's request, developing a bill that could pass the House and promote certainty for student borrowers. The House moved to pass the bill in May, reasserting that access to education for so many of America's young people should not be subject to annual political battles. Unfortunately, the Senate chose politics over students and delayed passage of the legislation until last week.

The positive is that H.R. 1911 is a complete departure from what had become an annual debate within Congress on how to set the rates for student loans. This measure modifies how interest rates on most Federal student loans are set, returning to a system under which interest rates are tied to market rates, but with rates fixed for the period of the loan. It would apply retroactively to any loans since July 1, when the 3.4 interest rate on Stafford loans rose to 6.8 percent.

This bill will transition the student loan system to one that is more predictable and affordable--one that protects both taxpayers and students. We have a responsibility to America's youth. We have a responsibility to the students such as those seeking opportunities at Penn State, Pitt, Lock Haven, Clarion, Edinboro, Juniata, Dubois Business College, and South Hills. We have to put forward a long-term plan for college affordability. This bill is a good first step and will offer students the lowest possible rate for higher education while ensuring the solvency of these important loan programs.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 31st anniversary of the creation of the National Council for Independent Living. NCIL is the leading organization for persons with disability.

Thirty-two years ago, I began my career and life passion serving individuals who were living with life-changing disabilities. I'm proud to be one of the 214 cosponsors of the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act. The ABLE Act will ease the financial strains for individuals with disabilities. I'm also proud to be the author of the Special Needs Trust Fairness Act of 2013. This legislation removes the current barriers that prevent individuals with disabilities from independently creating a special needs trust. What we're talking about is individual independence and making sure that public policy is a tool, not a barrier, in achieving this goal.

Once again, I want to thank the National Council for Independent Living for their leadership and service. Working with advocates such as the National Council for Independent Living, we will accomplish independence, dignity, and success for individuals living with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, it's been a tough week for American consumers. Yesterday, it was reported that under the Federal Bureau of Land Management's new proposed onshore hydraulic fracturing regulations, businesses will suffer--as will the rate of production in developing our Nation's plentiful natural gas. Yes, a clean and affordable resource.

Reuters News reports:

The Obama administration hopes the rules on public lands

will serve as a model for State oversight of drilling on

private lands.

This plan is no secret. U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said as much in her testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee in July. Make no mistake: these Federal regulations are being developed as a model to be used across the country.

The development of our Nation's domestic energy resources has been one of the few bright spots in a struggling economy. It's very clear how and why this era of growth and innovation came to be. Take a look at the production rates on State and private lands versus Federal lands and you will see why. Production is up on the former and way down on the latter. Unfortunately, the administration wants to close this gap by putting the Federal Government in control and imposing costly new mandates everywhere that production is taking place.

It's bad for business, Mr. Speaker. What's worse, it's bad for consumers by making the cost of heating their homes that much more expensive.

And it doesn't stop with natural gas. Coal is also in the administration's crosshairs. Only with coal, the White House has a hair trigger, a scope, and a silencer. Case in point: a sweeping new coal regulation quietly being put forward by the administration known as the Stream Buffer Zone Rule.

Yesterday, Joseph Pizarchik, Director of the Federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement at the U.S. Department of the Interior, testified before the House Natural Resources Committee on the new rule. The Interior Department has largely stonewalled the Committee's investigation into the rewrite of the coal regulation and failed to comply with multiple subpoenas.

Similar to the Director's testimony, the entire rulemaking process for this new regulation has lacked transparency. What we do know is that the administration has failed to even consider the new rule's economic impact on local economies, such as those in my home State of Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, the conduct of OSM is emblematic of the Obama administration's complete disregard for the health of our economy. As many as 220,000 jobs are at risk in the Appalachia region alone as a consequence of the proposed rule. Thousands more are at stake nationally.

DOI regulations require that OSM collaborate ``to the fullest extent possible'' with the States developing this rule. DOI regulations also require that OSM collaborate with States ``at the earliest possible time'' so that all stakeholders can evaluate the rule and consider possible alternatives.

Yesterday, when asked whether or not States have been provided with information regarding the new rule and related changes, the OSM Director stated he does not believe that there have been any contacts during the last year with the impacted States. When further pressed as to whether his office had made any contact with States and other cooperating agencies, the Director stated that he was unaware of any such communications.

Mr. Speaker, this White House will stop at no end to assault the fossil fuels industry along with the millions of jobs it supports and the low energy costs that it provides.

Mr. Speaker, protecting the environment and developing our abundant natural resources, such as coal and natural gas, are not mutually exclusive, but this is not something that this administration would like to admit.

This week, the administration continued to move ahead with policies that will cost more jobs and further harm family budgets through higher electricity rates. This week, the administration continued to grossly underestimate the cumulative impact of their regulatory actions. And this week was another tough week for the American consumer.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, the Washington Times reported, and I quote:

The leading Federal research effort into the controversial

drilling method known as fracking has turned up no evidence

so far linking the process to water contamination, a

connection continually drawn by many environmentalist

critics, along with some Democrats in Congress.

The report continues, stating:

The Department of Energy research being conducted at a

Marcellus shale natural gas well in western Pennsylvania thus

far has shown that chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing

practice have stayed thousands of feet below drinking water

supplies.

Additionally, in April, a determination made by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection found that fracking is not to blame for high methane levels in drinking water in communities in northern Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, the United States oil and gas producers would pay an additional $345 million a year, or an average of $96,913 per well, under the United States Bureau of Land Management's amended proposed Federal onshore hydraulic fracturing regulations.

According to the report, the amended proposal's estimated cost still exceeds the $100 million threshold requiring an economic assessment by the Bureau of Land Management.

Now, while changes the Department of the Interior made following comments from producers, environmental organizations and other stakeholders included elimination of the requirement to regulate well maintenance, much more consideration must be given to these burdensome regulations.

Local scientists and regulators know the geology where natural gas extraction occurs. They know the industry. They know how to balance good science and manage the industry's expansion--without thwarting innovation, growth, and affordable, reliable energy. Local economies, including many in my district, are booming due to the natural gas industry. The model that is making this possible is based on stringent regulations at the State level, not the heavy hand of the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, later this week, the bipartisan Congressional Natural Gas Caucus will convene a field hearing, entitled, ``The Economic Impacts of Shale Production.'' This will be done at Penn College in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The caucus will receive testimony from local officials and community leaders concerning the economic impacts of natural gas production.

We must promote best practices, sound science, and do our very best as communities to manage this rapid growth and promote this industry that is offering prosperity to so many Americans.

Mr. Speaker, last week a group of more than 80 Members of the House and Senate unveiled a package of legislative reforms to make government more efficient, effective, and less wasteful.

The bipartisan group is called ``No Labels''--encompassing Members of Congress who have committed to meet on a regular basis to find common ground among political parties on a range of policy issues.

I reach across the aisle on every single piece of legislation I introduce. It's the only way to actually get something done in this town. But this group is looking to create a larger dialogue among Members of Congress from different parties with different philosophies. It's a constructive group that is looking to advance solutions on a nonpartisan basis.

The package of nine bills they introduced last week might not solve all the Nation's problems, but they do demonstrate how common ground can be achieved, how Democrats and Republicans can work together as problem-solvers.

The more Members that we can bring together to work across the aisle on a consistent basis helps us to build trust and ultimately a legislative branch that functions a whole lot better.

Mr. Speaker, in May of 2012, the House Ways and Means Committee released a report that expounds upon one of the most problematic provisions included in ObamaCare, the mandate on employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees to offer ``affordable'' and government-approved health insurance plans to their workers beginning in 2014.

Employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees who do not offer government-approved coverage must pay $2,000 in fines annually per employee. After 2014, the fine would be indexed to the average per capita premium for health insurance, as determined by the Health and Human Services Secretary.

Even if employers do offer government-approved health insurance coverage, they would still be fined if Health and Human Services deems the plan ``unaffordable'' and at least one full-time employee purchases a qualified health plan through an exchange and receives a taxpayer- funded subsidy for their coverage.

Seventy-one Fortune 100 companies that responded to the Ways and Means Committee survey included in the 2012 report estimate that they could save $28.6 billion in 2014 by eliminating health insurance coverage for their 5.9 million employees and opting to pay the $2,000 annual fine per employee. This would impact more than 10.2 million employees and dependents on employer-based plans. Under these estimates, from 2014 through 2023, the employers surveyed could save an estimated $422.4 billion.

The employer mandate provides a perverse incentive for companies to drop their employees from health plans that are otherwise working and are embraced by the employees themselves. This is a stark contrast from the promises made by President Obama, suggesting ``First of all, if you've got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.''

Mr. Speaker, as we are seeing, that is simply not true. But furthermore, the employer mandate will serve to drive up the costs of ObamaCare as more and more people become a part of the exchanges.

Even Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, in an interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius this past January, posed the question as to whether or not the employee mandate would cause employers to ``dump'' employees into the exchanges until it ``becomes sort of a back door of government--not a takeover necessarily, but of a government responsibility for the health care, and then suddenly, obviously then, we're Sweden.''

Mr. Speaker, this week the House will vote to legitimize the administration's delay of the employer mandate for 1 year. While I support this delay, we must continue to focus efforts on repealing and replacing ObamaCare so that we can begin to reduce the escalating health care costs and the restrictions on access, the attacks on quality innovation in this country and the turnover of health care from a personal decision to the government.

Madam Speaker, last week, the House passed the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, or FARRM Act. Overall, the agriculture programs will save $20 billion.

This package of farm bill programs will create a more cost-effective and market-oriented framework of agriculture policies and ensure that Americans continue to have a safe and affordable food supply.

This bill did not include title IV of the committee-passed legislation, which contained significant reforms to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or food stamps, totaling an additional $20 billion in savings. Contrary to popular belief, the current SNAP program was not affected by passage of last week's FARRM Act.

The American people deserve a transparent and open debate over agriculture and nutrition programs, both of which are in dire need of reform, which is why the House will be considering reforms to SNAP in the coming weeks.

We have an opportunity to achieve a better and more efficient farm bill here, Madam Speaker. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House and Senate on a final package so that we can enact those commonsense reforms into law.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House will debate H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act. This bill will delay enforcement of the ObamaCare mandate--employers with 50 full-time employees who do not offer government-approved coverage must pay a $2,000 fine annually for an employee. On July 2, the administration announced a delay. And while their authority to unilaterally change the law is questionable, the mandate remains a problem.

Earlier today, an employer in Pennsylvania told me that in order to address compliance costs, the employer would opt to close 1 day a week. This is not rhetoric.

In May of 2012, 71 Fortune 100 companies responded to a House Ways and Means survey. They estimated savings up to $28.6 billion in 2014 by eliminating coverage for their 5.9 million employees, paying the $2,000 annual fine. This would impact more than 10.2 million employees and dependents.

It appears that the administration has begun to understand that the employer mandate provides a perverse incentive for companies to drop their employees from health plans that are otherwise working.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2667.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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. Speaker, today I rise to inform my colleagues of an important piece of bipartisan legislation that will be introduced later today called the All Children Are Equal Act, or ACE Act. The ACE Act corrects a gross inequity in the way funding formulas are calculated under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Title I was designed to improve the achievement of disadvantaged children.

In order to allocate more funding per title I student to local education agencies, or LEAs, with higher concentrations of poverty, the funding formula weighs the count of eligible students in an LEA. However, the formulas have the perverse effect of directing funds away from all smaller school districts, both urban and rural, towards larger LEAs, regardless of the poverty rate. The ACE Act would gradually decrease the effects of number weighting and return the focus to areas with the highest concentration of poverty, as originally intended under the law.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to have Representative Slaughter of New York join me in introducing this important bill. I encourage my colleagues to join us in correcting this fundamental injustice.

Mr. Speaker, passage of a new farm bill is long overdue.

The House Agriculture Committee has spent 4 years, held dozens of hearings and countless hours preparing for this farm bill. Plain and simple, the committee-passed bill, which was recently considered by this body, made substantial reforms to agriculture programs. It eliminated more than 100 programs and reformed outdated, costly, and ineffective programs. The committee-passed bill would have saved taxpayers over $40 billion, with half of the savings coming out of the farm programs.

The bill before us today repeals the outdated farm programs that we don't need and we can't afford. Direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program, and the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) are all repealed in this bill. We get rid of many costly subsidy programs and replace them with free market-modeled risk mismanagement.

For the sake of our Nation's farmers and ranchers, and also for all citizens who rely on the safest, most affordable and highest quality food, I rise in support of this legislation and strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated, ``If we do nothing, student loan rates go to 6.8 percent,'' as reported by Politico.

In case the Leader forgot, interest rates doubled to 6.8 percent last week. The House acted to prevent it. The Senate did not.

Today, The Washington Post Editorial Board writes:

The Senate is set to consider on Wednesday the Keep Student

Loans Affordable Act in what could be the Chamber's only

reaction to the recent doubling of a low student loan

interest rate . . . lawmakers should reject this pathetic

nonsolution.

The editorial continues:

With the President and the House in near alignment on the

student loan issue, the Senate has no excuse to fail. Mr.

Obama should press Democrats hard and work with Republicans

to strike a deal, not to vote for dead-end policy.

Unfortunately, rather than solve problems, the Senate is wasting the American people's time and moving forward with another dead-end policy, what today's Post refers to as another ``campaign gimmick.''

The people deserve better. Our students deserve better in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has no excuse.

Mr. Speaker, last week while the American people were preparing to celebrate the 237th birthday of the Nation, the Obama administration announced, via a blog post, that it will provide an additional year before the employer reporting requirements and the employer shared responsibility requirements of ObamaCare take effect.

There are few issues as personal and significant in the lives of individuals and families as health and well-being, which is why the irony of reminding Americans that government now controls their health care during the week we celebrate our country's independence did not go unnoticed. Despite efforts to quietly buy time and obfuscate responsibility for this fatally designed health care law, most Americans rightfully view this delay as an admission of failure.

Mr. Speaker, the businesses that provide the jobs and the source of health care coverage for most Americans were not surprised by this announcement. Most are well aware that this law was thoughtlessly rammed through Congress in the middle of the night with a litany of technology flaws and other blatant failures.

Unfortunately, employers have been struggling with high health care costs since before the law passed. Given the combined pressure of new taxes and regulations, businesses are hurting exponentially worse now that the law's provisions have begun to take effect. These new government mandates incentivize businesses to reduce their workforce to under 50 full-time equivalency employees. To avoid financial penalties, the incentive under ObamaCare is to reduce individual hours to avoid these mandates. Employees now face the redefinition of ``full-time'' down to just 35 hours per week.

This law denies opportunities for growth that could and should be available and promoted. This is fundamentally counter to what a vibrant and robust American economy demands. Fewer jobs and reduced individual hours are not good for individuals, for families, for businesses, or for our economy. Nonetheless, employees and employers alike are experiencing the consequences of ``Obama-sizing'' both businesses and jobs.

By the time the law is fully implemented in 2023, the Congressional

Budget Office estimates that the President's health care law will still leave 30 million Americans uninsured. At the same time, the law is massively driving up the cost of care for both employers and employees. In fact, 17 of the Nation's largest insurance companies indicate that health insurance premiums will grow an average of 100 percent under this law.

The evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive, Mr. Speaker: ObamaCare is not only unaffordable, but it also fails to address access to care in any meaningful way. In the process, we're damaging everything that is good and effective about the current system. To boot, we're undermining growth and stalling our economic recovery. Effectively, we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The fact that the White House used a blog post to announce the employer mandate change reveals just how desperate the administration is to cover up the flaws of this fatally flawed bill. Unfortunately, this is not something the White House was willing to admit until after the midterm election.

In the time since this body last adjourned, storms and extreme weather have ravaged large portions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The resulting floods have devastated communities across the Fifth District of Pennsylvania, including--but quite possibly not limited to--Venango, Jefferson, Clearfield, Clinton, and Centre Counties, all of which I represent.

In the days following these events, I joined with State and local officials and others in the impacted communities to help those coping with loss to assess the damage and to begin the process of rebuilding. Though so many individuals and families are faced with loss and despair, it was truly inspiring to witness these communities come together to help fellow neighbors in need.

I take the floor today to offer my thoughts and prayers to those affected by these events, especially to those grieving over the loss of a loved one. These individuals need our support and the care of a helping hand more than ever.