Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 106) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 106.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H. Con. Res. 106 would authorize the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby on June 16, 2012.

This event occurs annually on the Capitol Grounds. The Soap Box Derby allows children to show off their dedication, hard work, and creativity as they compete for trophies. And as someone who has participated in derbies myself, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. The winners of each division are then qualified to compete in the National Soap Box Derby.

I am excited to urge my colleagues to support passage of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thought that was compelling, Mr. Speaker, and I am very excited that we are going to hear next from a gentleman who has been a big champion of the Soap Box Derby for many moons now.

With that, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this resolution. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Last week, I met with more than 70 small businesses throughout southwest Washington, so I am here to support a bill today that would give every one of those businesses a much-needed, positive injection of capital.

What my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have a hard time understanding is that 7 out of 10 jobs in this country over the last 20 years have come from small businesses. If we create an environment where they can grow and succeed, more people are going to find work, and that's what this is all about. They need it. My district has endured multiple years of double-digit unemployment, and job- providing small businesses haven't seen much from their government to give them hope or to encourage them to grow their workforces.

For example, many small businesses that I've met with are really worried about hitting that 50-employee threshold that is going to trigger the health care law's burdensome cost. They're staying under it. Imagine that: a government rule that is deterring small businesses from hiring. This is a terrible time to send that message. Another business owner talked to me about how he is exasperated by the government reaching out to him, saying he had 4 days to put together a mountain load of paperwork or face a fine.

We need to remove those barriers. Today, the bill that we get a chance to pass is going to send a different signal that says, Government wants you to grow. We want you to hire. You're not Uncle Sam's piggy bank. We want you to succeed and prosper.

These businesses are going to put moms, dads, and hardworking taxpayers to work. Let's allow them to do

more of that. On behalf of small business owners in southwest Washington, I stand in strong support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I stand in acknowledgement of Frozen Food Month, and to recognize an industry's significant efforts to ensure families and schoolchildren across America have access to healthy, affordable foods.

Few other foods offer consumers the benefits and flexibility of frozen foods. Frozen fruits, vegetables and entrees help busy moms and dads easily prepare quality meals at home, allowing for more family time spent around the dinner table. In school cafeterias, lunch planners rely on frozen foods to help stretch limited budgets and serve healthy meals kids enjoy eating. And frozen fruits and vegetables, with their year-round availability and outstanding nutritional value, make it easy for everyone to eat more fruits and vegetables at home, at school and on the go.

Consumer appreciation for the value frozen foods offer has catapulted sales in this rapidly-growing industry to over $60 billion. With nearly 700 frozen food facilities employing nearly 100,000 Americans nationwide, its economic footprint is significant. Forty of those frozen food operations are located in my home state of Washington.

In recognition of Frozen Food Month, I take this opportunity to honor one of Washington

state's very own, National Frozen Foods Corporation, headquartered in Seattle. National Frozen Foods is celebrating an impressive 100 years as a leader in the frozen food industry this year.

National's history began in 1912 when William McCaffray, Sr. began a small strawberry-freezing operation on a $5,000 loan from a friend. Recognizing the advantages of frozen food production and building on his early success, the company began freezing vegetables in the 1930s. Today, National Frozen Foods has grown to be one of the nation's premiere private-label frozen vegetable producers, employing some 670 workers throughout the year. Their Chehalis, Washington, facility is in the heart of the district I represent.

National's commitment to continuing improvement through innovation-- not only at a company level, but as an industry leader--is clear. National Frozen Foods President and CEO Richard H. Grader is a former chairman and longtime member of the board of directors of the American Frozen Food Institute. In his current role as chairman of the Frozen Food Foundation, Mr. Grader guides the foundation's efforts to better educate consumers and the general public about the considerable nutritional and food safety attributes offered by frozen foods.

The impact that National Frozen Foods Corporation has had on the industry and on the economy of Southwest Washington, Washington state, and the positive impact that the industry continues to have on this nation are immeasurable. I applaud the frozen food industry and the management and employees of National Frozen Foods Corporation for your hard work and your contribution to America.

I thank the gentlelady for allowing me the time to join her here today to talk about what this government can and should be doing to help the private sector grow jobs. That's what we're about. We want to help small businesses grow jobs.

This is a statistic most of us are familiar with. Close to two-thirds of all new jobs come from small businesses. They are truly the backbone of our economy. So what if this government started by saying, What can we do to help you, not hurt you or impede your success?

And that's what this Congress is going to be doing this week as we consider the Regulatory Flexibility Act, H.R. 527. It's a bill that strengthens existing law. It simply says a Federal rule is killing jobs if a Federal agency is then required to find a rule that's less burdensome. It's pretty cut and dried. It's something we should be doing already, but we actually have to pass a bill to require it.

When the Federal agencies here in Washington, DC, issue one rule after another, small businesses pay the price and our economy loses jobs.

For instance, take Somarakis Vacuum Pumps in my neck of the woods in southwest Washington, a business manufacturer. When I visit this business, I see a thriving facility with people at work. They're assembling products that help our economy grow. But Somarakis Vacuum Pumps doesn't have a huge team of lawyers and business accountants to handle the regulatory details. They actually need regulatory specialists to navigate the maze of Federal rules. They don't have the money; but, you know, they just might need it.

I actually brought the reason why I think they might need that. Mr. Speaker, this is pretty heavy. This is actually the list of Federal rules and regulations just for half of November. This doesn't even represent the entire month. These books I have right here represent about 2 weeks' worth of Federal regulations and rules that Somarakis Vacuum Pumps has to navigate.

Let me show you, if I may, just the rules from the last 3 days-- Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday--right here.

You know, part of the reason we're here today is to illustrate the need to make it simpler and easier for small businesses to navigate this Federal maze. I mean, this is ridiculous. This is Monday, this is Tuesday, and this is Wednesday. Three days' worth of rules that Somarakis Vacuum Pumps in southwest Washington is going to need help navigating.

It shouldn't be this way, Mr. Speaker, which is why this week we're working very hard, and we're going to pass a bill that says if these rules and burdens--it puts the proof and the burden back on the government. If these rules are too burdensome, the Federal Government needs to find a better way to put forward its regulations.

Another rule that's really important is working its way through the Environmental Protection Agency and the courts. It's called the Forest Roads Rule. It's also very impactful to southwest Washington. It's crippling in that it overturns 35 years of environmental policy and would require a Federal permit on every single forest road. In essence, you have to get the same Federal permit for a road through your privately owned forestland that you would have to get for factories and industrial sites. That's not necessary.

Let's consider the impacts on public land. According to the U.S. Forest Service, it would require that agency alone 10 years to obtain the 400,000 permits necessary for the roads on public lands. What would that do to Rick Dunning, who owns a small tree farm in Clark County, Washington? He's not the U.S. Forest Service. He doesn't have unlimited lawyers and resources. He has to do this on his own.

That's what we're here tonight to do is to make it easier on these small business owners to operate in our regions and grow our economy.

With that, I thank the gentlelady for the time to talk about my support for the Regulatory Flexibility Act and for what we're doing to help grow jobs in small businesses.

Winston Churchill said that Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing after they've exhausted all other possibilities.

What's interesting about this quote is it actually applies to this institution. What have we tried? We've tried billion-dollar bailouts for auto companies. We've tried billion-dollar bailouts for Wall Street fat cats, not for Main Street. We've done bailouts for automakers. We've thrown money at everything, and we have added so much to our national debt in the last 4 years.

Republicans did it too. It doesn't make it right.

So, are we better off than we were 4 years ago? No. In southwest Washington State, we still have rampant unemployment and joblessness.

I'm no economist. I'm not the distinguished minority leader, whom I respect. I'm just an average American

that understands a very simple truth: You cannot spend more than you have.

That's all this amendment does. That's it. We're not cutting Social Security. We're not cutting Medicare. We would not. We're actually protecting those programs by saying, this Federal Government is going to live within the money that it takes from the taxpayers every year, no more, no less.

It's very, very simple. You don't have to be an economist to understand that if you spend more money than you have every year, you have a problem. Our problem is $15 trillion worth of backbreaking debt. We don't have to look much further than Europe to know that no country can exist under debt like this for too long. We're actually taking steps to protect our poor and vulnerable by putting sideboards around the reckless spending of this Congress.

With this amendment, we're cutting up the credit card that is going to break the backs of the American people and cost us more jobs.

I urge my colleagues to join us in solutions, and bipartisan solutions, that are going to bring an opportunity for America to prosper and succeed. A ``no'' vote is putting people under and putting politics above. We need to reverse that and put people before politics.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Thank you so much.

We're all here tonight because we really believe that America is the greatest country on the face of the Earth, and it is so because of her people.

Folks at home in my neck of the woods in southwest Washington are out of work. I can go through the statistics. It's alarming. It's very alarming. I have family and close friends who have been out of work now going on several years. Double-digit unemployment, and we've been at this rate for 3, going on 4 years now.

I had a jobs fair a couple of weeks ago. We invited employers who are hiring real jobs, good jobs to come. We got them in a room with job seekers and put out kind of an all-hands-on-deck call: Anybody who's looking for a job, we have real job openings available. Come to this jobs fair. We had over 1,700 people show up. And as I walked through the line that snaked through the parking lot to say hello and to greet these folks, I was talking to men and women, young and old, very experienced or fresh out of high school or college who were looking to find work, experienced individuals who had that look on their face, some of them, of desperation. And they're asking, What is Congress going to do? What is Congress going to do to help me find work to keep my mortgage, to pay for my kids' education, and to put food on the table? What are you going to do?

Well, we're here tonight to talk about some of the things we've already done. And right now what we're doing is we want to put pressure on the other side of the rotunda to pass these bills and get some jobs flowing for the folks who stood in that parking lot.

That event was a success. We've had over 30 people find work, and we've had hundreds more who are in interviews. Great. I did that because I didn't feel you could wait on an act of Congress. And watching those individuals who are on the other side of the rotunda who haven't passed any of these jobs bills, it would seem like a good idea. But here tonight we are applying appropriate pressure to that group, saying, Pass these bills.

Let me talk to you about one of these bills that will make a huge difference for people across this Nation. It's called the EPA Regulatory Relief Act. It's a simple bill. It's a very bipartisan bill. And let me tell you about this bill. And people throw around that word ``bipartisan.'' What does that mean? It means strong support from Republicans and Democrats.

I'm going to read for you, right here is H.R. 2250. That's the bill that we passed off this House floor. These are all of the folks, my friends from the other side of the aisle. Here are the Democrats in the House who have sponsored this bill. We have folks in leadership and we have newer Members. They have joined with the Republican House here and passed a bill, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, that the Senate must take up if we are going to protect these jobs. These regulations, in fact, hit all sorts of industries.

There's a rule that the Obama administration's EPA has put forward that says business, industry, and hospitals, anyone that has a type of boiler, you have to put millions, in some cases millions of dollars into this boiler to bring it up to some standard. That standard hasn't been clearly defined. And, actually, the EPA itself has asked and said, Can we take a little bit more time to figure out what we are requiring of folks before we require major capital investments, capital investments that could otherwise be used to hire someone or to increase productivity in a business to create more jobs?

But what's happening is these businesses are now going to be required to put this money into an expenditure to bring this boiler up to some code that we can't prove has any environmental benefit, which is why you see so many folks who are advocates for the environment who have cosponsored this bill in the House. We need the Senate to pass this bill; otherwise, we could lose potentially over 20,000 jobs nationwide. That's in the primary pulp and paper industry alone. I'm not talking about hospitals. I'm not talking about other industries. In southwest Washington, we value the primary pulp and paper industry, which is 18 percent of that workforce.

At a time when we need to be creating jobs, we certainly should be getting rid of those regulations that cost us jobs. The way we do that is we get the Senate to join with us and pass this bill, get it to the President's desk, get that man to sign that bill and move forward for the people in our communities.

The EPA, the Obama administration's EPA alone has estimated that that regulation, if untouched, will cost employers over 5, almost 6 billion, and that's the low-end number. The industries have said it would be as high as 14 billion. Any way you look at it, that's a high price tag that's going to cost jobs. Over 230,000 total jobs are at risk if you count the related industries, not just pulp and paper. So we're talking about major impacts to our national economy, and all we have to do--all we have to do to protect those jobs is we need to pass this bill off the Senate floor, get it to the President and get him to sign it into law. We really don't have time to wait.

I have talked to the men and women, the moms and dads, the young people who are hoping to find work. And when we let some of our industry just go out, basically die, death by 1,000 cuts, death by 1,000 regulations, shame on this institution. Congress does need to act, and I implore my colleagues on the other side of the rotunda to join with us in this bipartisan fashion. Send this bill to the President, and have the President sign it.

I yield to my colleague from Alabama.

Thank you.

With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

With that point, we're not saying let's erase or eviscerate environment protections, absolutely not. We want to protect our quality of life and pass it on to the next generation. We're simply asking, as with our Democratic colleagues, for some common sense to be used. Take into account, when you're going through the matrix of these environmental regulations, what the impact is on the economy. It's a very reasonable, very commonsense way to approach it.

Absolutely.

And here's an important point. We as Republicans understand that the Federal Government has responsibilities

and duties: security, our Nation's infrastructure. There are certain things we're responsible for. We're not against those things. We just think they need to be done in a smart and efficient fashion.

When you look at the last time the stimulus, giant amounts of money were spent before this most recent round of stimulus spending under the Obama economy, the last time we got things out of it like the Hoover Dam. We got something for it.

Out of the stimulus spending, which was sold primarily as a jobs bill because it was going to create transportation infrastructure, less than 7 percent of that $800 billion stimulus bill actually went to transportation and infrastructure.

So it's not that Republicans don't support making sure those things take place. We're here to require some accountability. We're not going to throw money at it and hope that that works. We recognize there's something broken here in Washington. We have now passed well over 15 bills to get jobs growing to fix that thing that's broken. And we just need some help from folks on the other side of the rotunda.

Absolutely.

I think, for those controlling this time, it's important to recognize, if you want more details about these jobs, the forgotten 15, jobs.gop.gov is a good place to go. If you want pick up the phone and call your Senators, there's the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, there's the EPA regulation bill, and there are several more bills that the other side needs to hear from the folks from home on.

I thank my colleague, and the Republican women who have joined us here tonight to talk about such an important issue and to share what we have been doing on behalf of our Nation's seniors, because I believe we need to protect the rights of our Nation's seniors, the right to make choices about their health care, the right to access what they spend their entire working lives paying into, the right to know that the programs that exist today will be there when they need them.

Now I would like to talk specifically about the right to make choices. Now in my corner of the country in southwest Washington State, more than a third of our seniors have chosen Medicare Advantage. That's 37 percent who have made this choice. In my most populated county, Clark County, half of the seniors have chosen to use Medicare Advantage. Part of the reason for this--and many times you see this happen--is because fewer and fewer doctors are taking traditional Medicare. It just doesn't pay enough to cover the bills. With Medicare Advantage, and you're a new Medicare beneficiary, you might have a shot at getting a doctor. This is very important when we have 10,000 baby boomers retiring every single day.

We stand with our Nation's seniors when it comes to--and I say ``we,'' my Republican colleagues and myself--when it comes to accessing programs they've spent their whole lives paying for.

The Medicare Board of Trustees and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, two nonpartisan groups who are tasked with figuring out what the cost of bills are, and that's CBO and Medicare, the trustees are tasked with the financial responsibility of keeping Medicare on the straight and narrow. Both have said within the next decade Medicare goes completely bankrupt. So if you are at home and you're watching this, the one thing you need to know is doing nothing is not an option. Ten years, 10 years, and Medicare goes insolvent. You know what that means? It means that those seniors who have paid their whole life into this program are suddenly going to be faced with choices. Are they going to face cuts in benefits or more limited services? Insolvent, completely insolvent. We have to do something, which is why earlier this year my Republican colleagues and myself joined together to put forth solutions for Medicare, to save it and to protect it. Those folks who have paid into this program their whole life deserve to pull that money out when it is time to access it, which means we need to take action now.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to consider the House-passed budget because what it does is protect retirement benefits for everyone who is 55

and older, completely keeps it as it is. And then for those in my generation who are younger, who are coming up the pike, it changes it necessarily so that we can also access those benefits we will pay into.

So I'm excited today to join with my colleagues to make sure that we protect these important programs. Seniors have a right to these programs, which is why we are stepping forward. We are going to stand with them to make sure that what they've paid into, they'll be able to access when it comes time.

The seniors in southwest Washington have spent years planning for their retirement. My colleagues and I will continue to take the lead when it comes to protecting programs like Medicare and their choices within Medicare. We have fought and will continue to fight against the credit card spending and against that mentality that jeopardizes this program because our seniors deserve that which they have paid into.

Now the Republican women that have joined me tonight on the floor to talk about these important issues, we understand that our Nation's seniors have rights, and they are looking to us to protect those rights, to protect Medicare for them and for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 786 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, the underlying legislation, unamended, because it's going to protect and grow jobs, both in my region and across the country.

My district in southwest Washington is home to thousands of private forest landowners. Whether it's a family farm or a private business, such as Weyerhauser, which is one of our region's largest businesses and employers, we have pulp mills, paper mills and an emerging biomass industry. And what do all these things have in common?

They all provide tens of thousands of jobs, good family-wage jobs to the folks in my region. And they're all part of the forest products industry that has long been the cornerstone of southwest Washington's economy. And if we don't pass this underlying bill unamended, they will all shed those thousands of jobs in southwest Washington.

How many are we talking about? Well, a recent study shows that about 18 percent of those jobs would be lost. Those who produce pulp and paper would be laid off by this onerous Boiler MACT rule as it's written. Those are blue-collar families. Those are family-wage jobs. They're the ones that would pay the price for this if we do not act now to protect the environment where jobs can grow.

Now, the ripple effects in related industries in our region and across the country would be an additional 87,000 jobs lost if we do not act and pass this bill. In a place like Cowlitz County in my district, where more than one out of every 10 moms and dads are out of work, the effect of this rule, if we don't fix it and we don't fix it soon, would further devastate an already devastated economy.

In August 89,000 jobs were created. They were added nationwide. So, basically, if we don't move now, we're going to wipe out the entire month of August's growth. That's going to put our economy backwards, not forwards.

And make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, that's one thing the current majority in the House is about is creating jobs for the men and women at home to make sure they can provide for their families and their kids, their kids' college education, their health care and so on and so forth. It's the American Dream.

Let's pass this bipartisan piece of legislation today without this amendment. It won't add to the deficit, and it's going to preserve those jobs for those folks who are struggling in my home region, southwest Washington, and across the country.

Let's give the EPA the time it's requested to rewrite the rule in a commonsense way. The great thing about this is our environment and our economy don't have to be mutually exclusive, which is why we're taking a balanced approach to changing this rule. It's why I believe and I am assuming that's part of the reason the EPA wants more time to rewrite it, because it had the feedback. Yes, we can innovate and create and reduce, and I support reducing whatever type of emissions we're producing as a Nation. We need to go there, but we need to do it in a commonsense way that doesn't just handicap the economy at a time when we need it to grow.

So let's give the EPA that time that they've requested so that facilities like Longview Fibre in Longview, Washington, won't have to lay any more people off. With this legislation, we can protect our environment and protect American jobs.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we all remember ten years ago on September 11; where we were, and what we were doing when we learned of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon.

We all felt fear and confusion at the images of horror we saw on the news. But this is America. What makes this country great is the courage and bravery that emerges during our darkest times. Later that evening, the President recited the 23rd Psalm in his address to Americans:

``Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for you are with me.''

A few months after 9/11, I was working with a small group of volunteers in a Red Cross shelter next to Ground Zero in New York. We were filling a simple role--serving eggs and providing blankets to those conducting the cleanup. It was a round the clock task and when the police, firefighters and construction workers needed to come in from the freezing weather, some would come in and attempt to rest. The scene was grave. Rubble that had been a pile was slowly turning into a pit as more was removed and cleaned up each day. Remains of victims were still being unearthed. But playing this small part in the healing process galvanized my desire to work in service to our communities. Like many Americans, my love and respect for our country and her citizens soared.

We take this ten year anniversary of the September 11 attacks to offer our heartfelt gratitude to our first responders, and the men and women of our military, who stepped forward to respond to this tragedy. And we remember those who have died for our country. May we also never forget the demonstrations of bravery or the spirit of service that resulted from 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 679, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, the reason we came here, this caucus is here, the new freshmen are here, is because the American people said, Enough. They said, You're spending too much of our money. And that's what this conversation is about today.

The President stood on the floor across the Rotunda a couple of years ago and said, It's a failure of leadership to raise the debt ceiling. Well, guess what? I came here never expecting to raise the debt ceiling, but I've now compromised. I've twice voted to raise the debt ceiling to cover spending from a failed stimulus, from a health care bill that ends Medicare as we know it. I voted twice for solutions. And that's compromise for me.

When I ran for this seat, I told the people that I serve, I'm not extreme; I am mad. I'm mad that Washington, D.C., thinks you are their piggy bank.

That's what this debate is about. We end it today.

Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here.

This is one of the most monumental times we face as a Nation. We are right now making decisions that are not just going to impact those of us here today but our children and our children's children.

I am so proud to be a part of this body that passed a bipartisan solution to our budgeting problems just yesterday. We passed, like the gentlelady spoke about, a balanced budget amendment.

I know there's a lot of controversy happening right now, and it's frustrating to watch people posture here in Washington, D.C. Folks back home are sending me emails, and they're calling me, saying, Can you just get some solutions done, Washington? And you know my what my response is? I completely agree.

It is frustrating to watch partisan bickering taking place. And I kind of smile to myself and I think, Just put more women in charge because we're going to fight for solutions. And that's what we are here doing today, promoting the solutions that we were able to pass on the floor just yesterday, solutions that require this House, this body, not to spend more money than it has coming in.

You know, it shouldn't be a radical concept. It shouldn't be controversial in the least. Every mother watching

this, every mother in America, daughter, sister, aunt understands you cannot spend more money each month than you have coming in, no.

Women in the household tend to be the decisionmakers when it comes to finances, to health care, to education, to taking care of older parents or family. Women tend to be those decisionmakers, which gives us a solution-oriented bent, which is why we're here today saying we are willing to work with anybody who puts a plan on paper to move this country forward, that reduces government overspending.

Again, very simple, don't spend more than you have coming in every month. That is a plan to economic prosperity. Don't treat small business owners--many of whom are women--don't treat small business owners as your personal piggy bank. You can't just go back to the cash cow every time you want to spend more money.

It's ironic. Margaret Thatcher--in fact, I saw this quote, I think it was yesterday, which basically said--I'm going to paraphrase her a little loosely. But she said: The problem with socialists is eventually they run out of other people's money. And that's the reality. Women understand, you just can't live beyond your means for sustained amounts of time.

For too long people of both parties--right, Republicans and Democrats--overspent. People of both parties in the White House have overspent. We can talk a long time about what got us here, but that's not going to get us out of the mess. What we need now are our solutions. And the solution that was passed yesterday--again, a bipartisan solution to cut the overspending, cap future growth of government, and balance our budget--is a solution that's going to get our country on a path to prosperity. It's going to tell job creators, keep doing what you do best; entrepreneurs, keep dreaming, hire more people.

In my neck of the woods in southwest Washington, we have double-digit unemployment. Three years plus now of families hurting. Enough is enough.

I encourage the Senate, I encourage the White House to come to an agreement, show us something on paper. We're willing to work together and to negotiate. We're all about making a solution happen for the American people. But let's live within our means. It shouldn't be that difficult.

With that, I thank the gentlelady for putting this together, and I'm proud to be a part of it.

Thank you for that. I couldn't agree more. You know what we're talking about here is jobs, job creation. And the best way to do that is to explore for energy here, to develop our energy resources. And that's why I am pleased to be a part of this Congress.

When I hear from folks back home, they say, ``Jamie, we sent you to D.C. for solutions.'' And that's precisely what this Congress has been about. With the gentleman you are going to hear from and others, I helped launch the House Energy Action Team, or HEAT is what we like to call it. It's an initiative with my House colleagues that we've started to bring forward energy solutions that put forward jobs for Americans. And I am a solutions-oriented person.

Solutions are definitely what America needs right now. And I see this from the vantage point of my corner of this country in southwest Washington State. Here is a good example. Just a few weeks ago, I met with John Leber. He is the owner of Swanson Bark in Longview. And basically, his business moves material for the forest products industry, including biomass for energy producers.

Now, the first problem we have encountered, and he has seen here with regard to some of these regulations, is we have very strict boiler MACT rules that are on hold. But if they are implemented, they would cost the forest products industry alone $5 billion to $7 billion to implement. And that's not hiring new people, that's not expanding their business, that's just costs of complying with Federal Government rules.

And there is more. The second problem is thousands of manufacturing and industrial facilities across this country use incinerators that would be affected, meaning they are going to have to spend more money, not to hire more people or to grow their business, but to comply with Federal Government rules.

Now, instead of stepping on the air hose of employers like John Leber, I cosponsored legislation and a solution that would allow the EPA to make the Boiler MACT rule more reasonable. Makes common sense; right? In turn, this would help the promising industry of biomass and the jobs that would come with it.

Now, the gentleman from South Carolina very rightly pointed out the energy exploration solutions that we passed here off this House floor. This is just one solution that I think is going to help, and I want to add it to those four. We are working on that. HEAT members here tonight are joining together to call on the Senate.

We have passed at least four bills that provide American energy solutions that will promote American energy jobs. The Senate needs to step up. I am going to share for you and reiterate some of those bills that we passed because they are very important. This is important to America's energy security and America's energy independence.

The first one is the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011. This would have simply required the EPA to speed up its approvals for energy exploration in Alaska. That's it. Speed up your approvals. That's pretty simple.

Developing and safely exploring for energy here would have produced a million barrels of oil per day, and it would

create more than 54,000 American energy jobs. Now, not all of us like the gentleman from North Dakota have such low unemployment rates. I think it was quoted as about 3 percent. I would be doing backflips for 3 percent unemployment.

In southwest Washington, we have had double-digit unemployment now for 3 years, 3-plus years, and it's horrible. So we need to get these things moving here in America and create those jobs, especially when it's within our reach to do.

And one of the other solutions that we worked on as a team was reversing President Obama's offshore moratorium. This would contribute over 1.2 million new jobs for Americans who are hurting across this country; 800 million in revenue would have come in if the Senate would move this bill.

Now, as we are talking about the deficit and deficit reductions and the debt ceiling--and I agree with what one of the Senators said. We don't need new taxes; we need new taxpayers. So getting more people to work, paying taxes is going to help us get out of the debt that this country is facing, and it's going to create more jobs.

The third bill that we worked on and passed off of this House, one of the solutions that we have already pushed through this Chamber, is the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act, and that bill simply reinforces safety measures through permitting inspections while increasing American energy.

I hope you are sensing a theme here tonight: American energy solutions and American jobs.

And the fourth one that we were pleased to get off this floor a few months ago was the Restarting the American Offshore Leasing Now Act. Now, this moves us forward with lease sales that were cancelled or postponed by this administration.

Remember, I mentioned stepping on that air hose. Well, a lot of the rules that have come out this administration have stepped on the air hose for employers in our Nation, and it has got to stop. We need to increase America's energy supply. This would increase thousands of American jobs, and it's common sense. All of these commonsense solutions that increase American energy production make it cheaper for families to fill their car with gas, to heat their homes, and it would give relief to American employers.

I am merely asking, and my colleagues here tonight, we are merely asking the Senate to imagine a future in the United States where energy is abundant and affordable and where we aren't riding the roller coaster of high gas prices that. Basically, those prices are set by other nations that don't like us very much.

So I encourage our Senate colleagues to join us in passing and pursuing more solutions like these that the people of this country deserve.

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

We are working on making this amendment something that can be passed as a part of this bill, but I just want to speak in support of it and share part of the reason I am very honored to be working with the gentleman from Vermont on this.

Basically, we are in Afghanistan right now helping to rebuild, or in many cases build from scratch, infrastructure. And when we leave that country--and I do hope it will be soon--we will leave that infrastructure behind. Power grids, water systems, trained law enforcement are the building blocks of a functioning society.

We will spend or have spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars on improvements meant to better the lives of the people in Afghanistan.

The reason I supported this amendment is we don't need to also be paying taxes to the Afghan Government for the privilege of rebuilding that country, and that's why I cosponsored the amendment.

The Department of Defense funding should be focused on providing soldiers training in the field and on the front lines with the tools they need to protect themselves and defend our country. This amendment would uphold or, as it was offered, as we attempted, would uphold existing law and clarify existing agreements between the U.S. and Afghanistan, prohibiting Afghanistan from taxing U.S. subcontractors doing work in Afghanistan. So this ban on levying taxes would also apply to all subcontractors that may not have direct contracts with Afghanistan.

In other words, if a company is working on a project funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, whether that company is a prime contractor or a subcontractor, that company should not be subject to taxes from the Afghan Government.

It seems pretty simple. These are the contractors doing the work of rebuilding in Afghanistan, helping rebuild the infrastructure and hopefully allowing them to one day thrive independently.

So common sense and financial prudence says the U.S. should not be subject to taxation for the rebuilding efforts it is paying for. That was what we were getting at with this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Very good. We will continue to work on this issue, and I thank you for hearing my point.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cole