Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to join here this evening with six or more of my colleagues from the freshman class to talk about a very important issue that we face in this Nation, and that is the need for our country to engage in an open and honest debate about comprehensive tax reform as we come to the end of the year with the expiration of our individual tax rates, our corporate tax rates, and the potential exposure of the estate tax being reinitiated at levels that would decimate family farmers and families across all of America.

I am pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues who understand the importance and the critical nature of this issue to put us on a path to make America competitive when it comes to the world economy, and also to come up with a Tax Code that is simpler and easier for people to understand and that we don't have to spend thousands of dollars, hundreds of dollars, paying advisers to fill out forms just to meet the obligation of a tax burden that is out of control because of spending that is completely causing this Nation to create a national debt of $15.6 trillion. As we go forward in this conversation, let us be open, honest and fair about the issues before us.

With that, I would like to yield, Mr. Speaker, to a good friend of mine from Georgia.

I so appreciate my colleague from Georgia, the president of the freshman class, for his comments on the family farm and standing up for family farmers all across America.

One thing that we're going to face at the end of the year with the expiration of these tax rates and a need for us to commit firmly to comprehensive tax reform, I hope we all adopt a policy, a policy that I have heard from folks throughout my district, across my great State of New York, and across this entire Nation, and that is a firm commitment that they're looking for from Washington, D.C., to adopt tax policy that is going to be certain, that we adopt tax policy that is going to be permanent. Because as we ask our local manufacturers, our job creators of the United States of America, they need to know that when they make these decisions on millions, if not billions, of dollars in local plants to put people back to work that the rules of the road are going to be clear and they are going to be certain and they are going to be permanent so that they can rely on that certainty, so that they can make the investment necessary to get this economy going forward again, and making sure that they can rely on those rules and that they won't change midstream as we see with tax policy that extends on 10- year windows--or tax extenders, the 101 tax extender policies that either expired last year at the end of 2011 or will expire at the end of 2012, things as basic as the research and development tax credit for our manufacturers across America. Those types of policies need to be done on a permanent nature so that when these investment decisions are made, the people that are making those choices know that there will be a forum and a platform on the American market that is secure, certain, and will allow them to make sure that there is a good thought process put in place as they make those investment decisions.

At this point in time, I would love to yield to my good friend from the State of Pennsylvania, one of our leaders in the freshman class, Mike Kelly.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for joining us here tonight.

In listening to your comments, I wholeheartedly agree that what we're seeing at the end of this year, if Washington, D.C., does not get its act together--and we as the freshman class, I think, are doing a great job in holding this city accountable and really changing the culture of Washington, D.C. The job has just started. We have a lot more work to do, and we'll continue to go forward on that mission.

But what we have to commit ourselves to is, if we do not act by the end of the year, the largest tax increase in the history of America will go into effect with the expiration of the individual tax rates, the reinstatement of the estate taxes at levels of 55 percent and beyond, and we need to act.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I so appreciate that comment.

With that, I would like to yield to another colleague of ours, a great Member of the freshman class from Florida, Colonel West.

I thank my colleague for his sentiment and the words that you expressed. And I'm reminded that we here in Washington cannot be like my children when they used to sit in the TV room and watch their cartoons, such as Teletubbies and the other ones that are there. We need to grow up. We need to deal with this issue once and for all.

And one thing that I'm repeatedly reminded of when I hear the President's proposal about the top 2 percent need to pay their fair share. I try to deal with this issue in an open and honest way. And if you do the math on that proposal, you raise $70 billion over 10 years. We have a $1.3 trillion deficit every year. The math just does not add up.

And so I always have to remind people as I engage in this debate about the need for comprehensive tax reform that the solution to our national debt problem is not going to be a revenue solution unless we grow this economy. Raising revenue through increasing taxes is not going to bridge--as my colleague said, mathematically, it is impossible to raise taxes enough to get to that $1.3 trillion number.

That's why I'm always reminded that this is a spending problem at its root cause, and that's why we need to continue to focus on that arena.

And I would also like to echo my colleague from Florida in his words. Essentially, this is going to boil down, in this November 2012 election, to two strategies of moving forward. And if I heard your statements and your words correctly, we essentially have one strategy that is going to be deployed by my colleagues on the Democratic side, on the other side of the aisle, who say it needs to be a revenue-based solution.

But that is code word back in my living rooms in my district for, we're going to raise taxes to deal with this situation. And I think this freshman class and the people that have joined us here on this side of the aisle in the Republican Party have firmly committed that the solution is on downsizing government, cutting spending, adhering to what our Founding Fathers believed in and put forth in the Constitution, a limited Federal Government, not an all-encompassing Federal Government that has grown the debt to the level that we see today.

I am also firmly committed to not engaging in the debate as to who caused it be it which President from whatever party. That is not the solution moving forward, engaging in the blame game. It is about recognizing the problem is upon us, whoever caused it, Democrat or Republican, and let's solve it.

When we come to November of 2012, the American people will not be stupid. They are not stupid individuals. They will see that the math doesn't add up with a solution based on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of increasing taxes to bridge this national debt problem. It is about truly being fiscally responsible and getting our fiscal house in order.

Does my colleague have any additional comments?

I so appreciate it, and I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.

At this point in time, I would like to yield to my good friend from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

I thank you so much, my colleague from Kansas, for coming down this evening to talk about this issue. You are exactly right. When I listened to the comments you had to offer, and as we go into this debate about comprehensive tax reform, I think there is somewhat of an agreement on both sides of the aisle that tax reform needs to be done because our Tax Code is way too complicated--70,000 pages of tax regulation and statutory language, legislation on top of legislation.

We need to firmly attack that Tax Code in a way that focuses on the primary goal of what our Tax Code was originally enacted for, to raise revenue, not to engage in policy determination or picking winners or losers through the Tax Code and advancing social policy through the Tax Code, but focusing on a Tax Code that raises revenue to cover our lawful, legitimate government expense as put forth in the United States Constitution of a limited Federal Government.

If we adhere to that principle and that goal, I am confident that both sides of this aisle will come together and achieve what could be one of those historical moments in this Chamber again where we set the country on a path to a more competitive and prosperous future moving forward.

With that, does the gentleman from Kansas seek recognition?

I've tried. I've read numerous parts of it especially when I'm up late at night and I can't sleep. It seems like a panacea for those sleepless nights because it immediately puts me back to bed.

Seventy thousand.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I appreciate those kind words.

As we move forward, I'd like to bring a good friend of ours from Wisconsin into this conversation. He has been a stalwart down here on the House floor, and has joined us numerous times in these opportunities when we have a chance to debate the issues of the day.

With that, Mr. Duffy, it is an honor to yield you time.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for joining us and the

sentiment and the words that you have expressed. As we go into the election and as we go into November 2012, I think what we are articulating on the House floor tonight as we are having this conversation about tax reform is that there are some differences that the American people are going to be able to choose between.

One of the fundamental differences, when it comes to tax policy, is I see a base philosophy differential between my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from the Democratic Party and those of us on this side of the aisle in the Republican Party, and that base differential and philosophy is what I hear from my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they propose such things as let's increase taxes on the top 2 percent or this group or that group. It's a fundamental belief, I would submit, that they believe that that money is better given to them here in Washington, D.C., to then dole out as they in Washington, D.C., feel is appropriate.

The philosophy on this side of the aisle that I am firmly committed to, and I am sure many of my colleagues here tonight are firmly committed to, is that that money is the individuals' money, it is the American citizens' money. They are the ones who earned it. They are the ones who punched the clock around the hour--24/7 or 8 o'clock in the morning until 4 o'clock in the afternoon or midnight till 8 a.m. They are the ones earning that money, and that is their money. The more that we can keep that money that they earned as citizens and individuals in their pocket, they will do the right thing. We believe in the individual.

From the arguments that I have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I would say that they differ in that opinion. They truly do believe that Washington should be the judge of where those resources go, because for some odd reason they sit here in Washington and try to come up with one-size-fits-all answers to the problems of the day. It fundamentally is a philosophy that that money is Washington, D.C.'s money and not the individual's.

My colleague from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is a strong advocate of the Fair Tax proposal that's been out there and that's being debated. That is one of the things that I have to say about this freshman class is that we have changed the culture of Washington, D.C., and that we are going to allow all alternatives to be on the table and have an open and honest conversation with all of America about reforms that are going forward and then going forward in a way that solves our Nation's problems, and everyone will be given a fair shake to express those ideas.

I'm sure my colleague from Georgia is rising today to offer his insight and his proposal as to an alternative to the income tax structure that we presently exist under, and that would be the Fair Tax. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize to the gentleman from Georgia; but knowing his reputation and his words around this town, I'm sure we are going to hear a little bit about that.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I so appreciate the gentleman from Georgia and the expression and sentiments you bring to the floor and the passion that you bring to the floor on this issue and all the issues that you bring to our attention. And you are so right. We are committed to having an open and honest debate with all of America, because the American hardworking taxpayer deserves no less.

We are here to do what needs to be done. We are here to lead. And that's why I appreciate my colleague from Georgia on the Budget Committee, because I know there was some political heat put on that Budget Committee to back away from coming up with a budget that we could stand for in this Chamber. But we took the stand and you took the stand as part of that Budget Committee to say, You know what, we're not going to engage in the politics of old. We're not going to be afraid to lead. Because the problems that face us in America today are generational. They are the same level threats that generations before us faced.

And that most recent example, possibly, that jumps to the top of my mind is World War II, when the real fate of the American Government, the American symbol of freedom and democracy, was at risk with a threat from Europe with fascism and the expressions coming out of that area of the world. And what did America do? That's the history lesson that I bring to this Chamber tonight.

American leadership, our President, our leaders did not look to divide America on that issue. That leadership led by uniting America to come together to face the generational threat and survive so that the America that they had could be passed on to our generation and this generation and grandchildren's generations to come so they have the opportunity to succeed and take care and live that American Dream. It is time for our Nation to come together, not be divided. And I am very confident because I have faith in the American individual that come November, 2012, the American people will make the right call. And between the choices that will be clearly articulated between both sides of this aisle we will see what needs to be done, and the right decisions will be made, and we will overcome this generational crisis that faces us in our national debt and this economy that has bogged down in stagnation, debt, doubt, and despair. And we will overcome it, because failure is not an alternative.

With that, I'd love to yield to a great lady on the Ways and Means Committee, a fellow freshman and a good friend, Mrs. Black from Tennessee.

We are coming to our end of time.

I would be honored to yield to my colleague from Tennessee for her closing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight and am joined down here by many of my colleagues as freshman Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to have an open and honest conversation with you, Mr. Speaker, and with all of America to talk about an issue that I believe is timely, with the court case that is now pending

in the United States Supreme Court dealing with the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ``ObamaCare,'' otherwise known as many other items, but tonight we'll be referring to it as ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act.

To me, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that ObamaCare is a legislative act that overpromises, overspends, and underperforms, all at the expense of hardworking taxpayers. The law does little to get to the root cause of the problem in health care, and that is escalating cost increases across America. To me, the law is more focused on health insurance reform and does not do much in regards to curving the increasing health care costs in America down.

Now, in the House of Representatives, we have voted repeatedly to repeal this atrocious law. I believe that is the best course of action for many reasons, and I'm sure we're going to get into those reasons tonight. But tonight we are joined by many freshman colleagues. What I'd like to do at this point in time is yield to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Scott), a great Member of the freshman class and president of the freshman class, to offer some comments in regards to the same.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining us this evening.

On the point about small businesses, I would refer to a McKenzie Group report that found that more than one-half of employers with high awareness of the impact of ObamaCare said in the poll and in that report that they will stop offering health coverage when this becomes fully implemented as a result of their concern as to the bureaucratic pressure and the cost that this law is going to put on small business America.

To me, that's unacceptable. I know it is unacceptable to my colleague from Georgia, and I so appreciate you entertaining some time with us tonight.

With that, I would like to yield to my good friend from South Carolina, a great member of the freshman class, Mr. Jeff Duncan.

I thank the gentleman for his comments so much because the Independent Payment Advisory Board is a classic example of what is wrong with ObamaCare. What they did in ObamaCare in the last congressional session was delegate its authority to 15 unelected bureaucrats. You're absolutely right.

And the worst thing about it, to my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, is that 15-member board is not subject to any open law requirements. They don't have to conduct their hearings in public. They don't have to conduct their deliberations with public input. It's 15 unelected bureaucrats that are making fundamental health care decisions that should be patient-centered relationships between a patient and a doctor.

But yet, under ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act, what this Congress did in the 111th Congress was delegate its authority to 15 bureaucrats to make those life-and-death decisions.

I yield to the gentleman.

I so appreciate that comment.

With that, at this point in time, I'd like to yield to a great colleague, Mr. Trey Gowdy from South Carolina. Mr. Gowdy has joined us this evening, and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this topic.

I thank the gentleman for coming tonight and sharing the passion of what we're talking about when we're talking about ObamaCare and the constitutionality and the concepts of federalism. It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of over 200 years ago our Founding Fathers had the brilliance, the vision, to recognize that the Federal Government is a limited Federal Government. The power of our government rests in the people, not in the Federal Government. The power of our government represents in the local and State entities that are closest to the people.

I firmly believe in the 10th Amendment and believe that the governments that are closest to the people are the best to be in the position to regulate and govern those people; and we should respect the U.S. Constitution and the limited powers that are enumerated in here, and recognize--and I hope that the United States Supreme Court joins me in that position in recognizing that

there are limits to the Federal Government. The interstate commerce clause has limits, and it's not open-ended in order to force us to purchase health insurance for the sake of forcing us to engage in commerce in order to more effectively regulate interstate commerce.

I so agree with the gentleman from South Carolina. If that is the holding of the Court, then the Federal Government has no bounds. The Federal Government will control every ounce, every corner of our lives on a day-to-day basis.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West), whom I so enjoy being a colleague of here as a freshman Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I thank my colleague from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman, the president of the freshman class, for that input.

What I would like to say in follow-up to the gentleman from Florida, quoting the numbers--and the numbers are real. Just recently, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, the independent bean counter of Washington, D.C., said that the real price tag under ObamaCare will be upwards of $1.76 trillion over 10 years added to our spending in Washington, DC.

We're at $15.6 trillion in the hole, and we're going to add another $1.76 trillion to that pricetag, to that debt? It's not sustainable. We have to do better.

We in the House of Representatives on the Republican side do have proposals and solutions that will replace ObamaCare and go a long way to turning that cost curve and our ever-increasing cost of health care in America.

What I would like to do is go beyond the numbers. I can tell you from firsthand experience--and I know a lot of my colleagues believe in this just as I do. When I go back to my district in upstate New York, I go out and I talk to people on the front line. Just recently in the last month and a half, I went to a business just north of Cornell, New York, a small electronics company that's been struggling day after day, just trying to make ends meet.

It has about 48 employees in his operation. As I'm meeting in his office, as I'm talking to him about the future of his business, he stated to me that because of this law, the Affordable Care Act and its 50-employee threshold for the additional bureaucracy and requirements and taxes and penalties that Washington, DC, is putting on that business if he goes over that 50-employee threshold, he told me to my face that he will keep his employee rolls at 48 and not venture down the path of hiring two more individuals. Those are two more families that won't be getting a paycheck and putting food on their table and having the private capital to put their kids through college because of legislation coming out of Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. We will do better.

November 2010, with my freshmen colleagues, was the start of that better governance for all of America, and I'm proud to be a part of this freshman class.

At this point in time, I would love to yield to a fellow colleague of the freshmen class, Mr. Griffin from Arkansas.

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas.

At this point in time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Reclaiming my time, I so agree with the gentleman from Arkansas, because you are absolutely right.

As you were expressing yourself to the Speaker and to this Chamber and to this floor, you made a comment, that since when does the Federal Government know best? And there are repeated provisions in the 3,000 pages of ObamaCare that clearly show that when the 111th Congress passed this legislation, they truly believed that the Federal Government, Washington, D.C., knew what was best for every individual in America coast to coast, north to south, east to west. You only have to look to the provision that deals with Medicaid, because we're talking a lot tonight about Medicare and IPAB and the provisions of ObamaCare that deal with that.

But look at the provisions dealing with Medicaid and the maintenance of efforts provisions in the law. And what that says, Madam Speaker, is that on the day of the effective date of ObamaCare, the States have to maintain the same level of service under its Medicaid program as was in effect on the date of the effective date of ObamaCare.

What does that mean, Madam Speaker? What does that mean to the State of New York? Well, the State of New York offers what all of my constituents in my district know as the Cadillac plan of Medicaid services. We offer every authorized program that the Federal Government allows under Medicaid. And actually, it's so well known that we're getting influxes of people coming to New York State because of the Medicaid medical services that we provide.

And what is that doing to New York State? Well, let me tell you. In the eight counties that I represent, over 100 percent of our real property tax levy--because we split the Medicaid share 25 percent/25 percent between the State and the local government. So our county tax property bill is equivalent to 100 percent that goes to cover those Medicaid services for our constituents in those eight counties. That means that every county tax bill that goes out, every dollar of that tax levy goes to cover the New York State 25 percent local share of Medicaid costs.

And what does ObamaCare do? It tells our elected officials in New York State, in Albany, You're handcuffed. You cannot change the level of services under Medicaid.

And what is it doing to other States, such as Texas that doesn't authorize all of the authorized programs at the Federal level for Medicaid services? It forces them to raise up and maintain their level of services under Medicaid.

I've talked with representatives from Texas and they point to New York State and they say New York State should be the example for which Texas should not follow. We should allow the States and the elected officials duly elected to represent the local citizens in those States the ability and discretion to tailor what is best for their States' citizens, not have a one-size-fits-all requirement coming from Washington, D.C., like the maintenance-of-efforts provisions under ObamaCare dictating across the country that what's good in New York is good for what's in California and Texas and everywhere else. Each State is unique.

And that is the wisdom and the vision that our Founding Fathers articulated when they recognized the 10th Amendment in the United States Constitution and have the Federal Government be a limited Federal Government, that its rights are only those enumerated in the Constitution. And if it isn't so enumerated in the Constitution, those powers are retained by the States and by the people in those States, not the Federal Government.

I again yield to my colleague from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia and for the gentleman's time in joining us on the floor of the House on this critical issue that we face in the U.S. House of Representatives.

What I would like to say in closing, Madam Speaker, is that there are many problems with the Affordable Care Act--there are many problems with ObamaCare--not the least of which is the constitutionality of that law. And let us hope that the United States Supreme Court renders its verdict, and that verdict is just and recognizes that this is an overreach of Federal power and strikes down this law.

But make no mistake about it, Madam Speaker, we in the House of Representatives recognize that there is a problem with health care in America, and those ever-increasing costs that burden Americans across the Nation need to be dealt with. But the solutions--and I know we'll have this conversation on another night, Madam Speaker--but the solutions that we come up with must be based from the patient's point of view, from the individual's point of view, from the patient and the doctor's relationship, not from the perspective of Washington bureaucrats, not from the perspective of a hospital administrator, but from the private relationship between patients and doctors. And I believe if we wholeheartedly agree to that principle, we will solve this problem. But in the end, ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act--does not accomplish the mission and needs to be repealed. And we'll stand for the repeal today and tomorrow.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 118 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nazareth College, which I am proud to represent as part of the 29th District of the great state of New York. Nazareth College was recently recognized by the Military Advanced Education Journal as military friendly, following a concerted effort to help veteran students transition to academia.

Beginning with the hiring of Jeremy Bagley as coordinator of veteran student enrollment, Nazareth College has worked to provide more services and offerings to its veteran students. By working with the Rochester Veterans Outreach Center, Nazareth College has provided access to creative arts therapy and therapists and developed a program to train faculty and staff to help respond to veterans' needs. When the Veterans Outreach Center was forced to lay off employees due to financial pressures, Nazareth College provided oversight of its on-site clinical staff to help offset the impact of cuts to vital programs. Nazareth College continues to offer internships pairing veterans with veteran mentors as part of a broad strategy to help veteran students better handle the transition from military service to academia.

In recognition of this concerted effort by Nazareth College and in light of the rigorous criteria used by the Military Advanced Education Journal in awarding this distinction, I am pleased to recognize Nazareth College for their designation as military friendly.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in what appears to be a bipartisan sentiment that's developing on the floor of the House today, and I'm pleased to be part of it. I'm pleased to stand with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and members of the Ways and Means Committee in support of a bill that will go a long way to protecting American job creators and American employees from coast to coast.

What we are talking about is allowing the imposition of countervailing duties in order to protect the American market to make sure that the American market is in a competitive position when it comes to our competitors in China and making sure that when we go to the battlefield of the marketplace that that marketplace is put on an even, level playing field so that we can compete squarely.

As my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) just articulated, I bet on the American worker every single time when we have a marketplace that is level, that is fair, and that is even. And that's why I ask all my colleagues--all of my colleagues--to join us in sending a message today by passing the subject bill and sending a message to the world, to the world economy and to the world markets that America will compete on an even playing field and allow the imposition of countervailing duties to make sure that we have free marketplace principles in place that protect our American workers and protect our American job creators.

For that, I wholeheartedly support and stand with hardworking taxpayers across this country. I ask all colleagues to join in support of this resolution and legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Greater Rochester Area Partnership for the Elderly. For twenty years, this community organization has directly and indirectly enhanced and enriched the lives of senior citizens in Western New York State. It brings together professionals, volunteers, and students who work with the aged in order to improve to ensure contemporary education, quality and implementation of services and support provided to senior citizens. The organization holds monthly workshops and programs which have had a positive impact for two decades on those who work with the elderly. Issues such as health care coordination, housing and residential issues, home health care, financial concerns, transportation, social life, emergency services, food and nutrition, senior volunteer options, and many others are regularly discussed and areas for cooperation and improvement are identified. The result is a better life for senior citizens. We celebrate the milestone of twenty years of effective service and advocacy and look forward to many more. It is with great pride that we recognize the achievements of the Greater Rochester Area Partnership for the Elderly and the dedicated professionals who advance the cause of quality of life for our senior citizens.

I thank my good friend from Oregon for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat on this conference committee now for a bunch of months, and there's been a lot of money spent in Washington, DC, and elsewhere around this Nation saying that the Republican Party is the Party of No. Well, let me tell you as I sat in this conference committee what I heard, and yesterday was the best example of it.

I heard commonsense proposals in the House bill brought to the conference committee, brought to the Senate Democrats and said, Look, we have all supported this. Ninety percent of

these pay-fors for the policy that we're trying to enact, the President--the Democratic President--supports. And what I heard repeatedly yesterday was, No, no, no. We are not going to accept these pay-fors. Even though our President said we'll accept them, even though we've supported them in the past, what I heard yesterday was, No, we're not going to pay for it.

So I think to the American people there is a clear division here. What we stand for in the House Republican side and in this Chamber is that we are going to pay for the decisions coming out of Washington, DC, going forward.

And I will have to say that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and my particular colleagues in the Senate on the Democratic side of the aisle, have tried to go back to the old politics of do you know what? Let's just call everything emergency spending and we don't have to pay for it. That's old-school politics. That philosophy is done and over with because the hardworking American taxpayers back at home, Mr. Speaker, deserve for us to pay our bills, and that is what we're doing.

I am all for true dialogue. If the Senate is not going to accept the pay-fors that are in the House bill, then send over whatever proposals you have to cover this bill, especially when we're talking about Social Security taxes and when we're talking about payroll taxes that are the sole revenue to fund Social Security.

I've met so many constituents back at home, Mr. Speaker, that have repeatedly told me, Why are you cutting these taxes? Why are you jeopardizing Social Security? And what I have said to them is, I believe that you need to keep your money, not give it to Washington and let them waste it and spend it on policies that are out of here. But what we will do is I will stand and make sure that Social Security is made whole.

That's what I'm looking for in this dialogue is that we come together, recognize that the politics of old is done and we will pay for our decisions. And once that happens, I am confident we can come together and do what hardworking taxpayers in America want us to do, and that is extend the payroll, take care of the unemployment, and take care of our doctors so that physicians can see our seniors in America and that Medicare is preserved.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Texas for coming down to the floor tonight. I am honored to join you tonight to have this conversation about developing a comprehensive American energy plan that will lead to energy independence for America, but in the short term, put many Americans back to work.

We've all been talking about it for months now. This Congress is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. And right here, right now, today, tonight, we have before us--be it the Keystone pipeline, 20,000 jobs. Here the gentleman from Colorado is talking about another project with 50,000 jobs immediately available to be put back into place. I just do not understand why we have not been able to come together and have a President that says, You know what, I'm not going to bow to the political pressure. I'm going to lead. But yet he bowed to the Hollywood elite, to the folks when it came to the Keystone pipeline, and rejected the Keystone pipeline, with 20,000 people, families, American families who are ready to go to work. And he said ``no.''

I appreciate the effort that you are putting together here because, as you know and as you have indicated--and in my area of the United States, up in upstate New York, we're dealing with the issue of natural gas development. In particular, Marcellus shale natural gas development.

I did listen to the President's State of the Union. I listened to it intently. And I heard his commitment to producing our natural gas, because he had come to the conclusion that natural gas is a safe, domestic source of energy for today, tomorrow, and for all of America. To me, I hope the President was sincere in that statement because I joined him in that sentiment in that we have, in our shale formations in America, an amount of natural gas equal to 100 years of supply for America.

People have described it as if we are the Saudi Arabia, the United States of America will be the Saudi Arabia of natural gas supply for the world.

That type of resource is a game changer. And we are talking about thousands of jobs. We are talking about the ability to create an energy platform that allows our manufacturers to come back to America. That is one thing I think we have joined on both sides of the aisle to be committed to is to build things in America again.

And why does a natural gas platform of energy lead to building in America again?

It's simple. It's simple, and I know my colleagues know it. Because if you can drive down utility costs, if you can stabilize them in the long term, 40, 50 years, manufacturers will look at America and say: You know what? What we make up by going overseas to China because of the labor difference--the wage difference that they achieve by going over there and tapping into those labor pools they will make up by coming back to America because the utility costs will be stable. They'll be cheaper, and they will be able to build things again in America because they want to build here, because the American worker is the best worker in the world. The quality of work and products that come from the American worker are the best by far. And the logistics that they don't have to deal with by having manufacturing items over in China and other areas of the world are gone because we're manufacturing in our backyard.

So this energy policy all relates to not only energy independence, but it relates to the manufacturing sector of America and bringing America back to the forefront of being the leading manufacturer in the world.

That is why I am so committed to the issue of developing natural gas. Now we have to do it safely. We have to do it responsibly. The President has conceded that point. Many scientists, the data and the information that is out there, have come to the conclusion we can do it safely and responsibly, but we need to lead and formulate a comprehensive approach to tapping that resource and bringing people back to work through the development of that resource in a responsible manner.

One last point I wanted to bring up, and I so appreciate all of the comments you've made here. Right today we have before us in this Chamber, or will soon have before us in this Chamber, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, and what a commonsense piece of legislation that I think this bill represents.

What it is essentially saying is we're going to take our natural resources in America and we're going to use the dollars that come from developing those natural resources on our public lands to rebuild the infrastructure of America. That, to me, is commonsense policy coming from Washington, taking our natural resources from the ground and putting it into our bridges, our highways, our roads, so that generations of people will have the infrastructure in place with its water, sewer, roads, bridges, in order to have the manufacturing of tomorrow, to have generations of people working.

With that, I have come here tonight to show my support to you on the issue of developing American energy. And I haven't even touched on the national security issues, and I haven't even touched on the final point that I will make.

My final point is that I have gone all over this Nation and I have gone all over my district and I've gone all over the northern tier of Pennsylvania where Marcellus Shale is being developed, and I have talked to so many people. We have spent so many taxpayer dollars here in Washington to try to educate people and bring them out of poverty.

You know, Mr. Gardner, from my conversations with the people in the northern tier of Pennsylvania, I have heard repeatedly because of this resource development, this natural gas

that we're developing in a safe and reliable manner, I'm able to put my kids through college. I'm able to maybe go out and venture into a business that otherwise I wouldn't be able to do because I didn't have the cash to do it. That is going to empower generations of American families for many generations to take them out of poverty and get them an education; and it's all being done on private capital, capital not coming from taxpayers but coming from good old-fashioned American business, coming out of the free enterprise system, utilizing those natural resources that are owned by those individuals that are empowering people for generations. And it's not being done on the taxpayer dollar.

To me, we should be joining hands and applauding that type of development of natural resource and commit ourselves to this comprehensive policy.

Well, I tell you, being from New York, being down in the northern tier of Pennsylvania, right now New York is in the process of finalizing its regulations to make sure that it can be done safely and responsibly, but I have the honor of representing the 29th Congressional District, which is right along the Pennsylvania border.

What we have seen is we have seen the spillover effect from the economic opportunities and economic development that is going on in the State of Pennsylvania from the development of the Marcellus Shale. One of the counties in my district, Chemung County, is leading the State in sales tax revenue numbers because of the economic impact coming across the border for our hotels, our restaurants, all of the activities we have talked about.

I've heard from retailers and I've heard from a dry cleaning outfit in my hometown of Corning, New York, that was raising an additional $6,000 a month by cleaning the overalls and the uniforms from the Marcellus Shale workers that are performing work in the State of Pennsylvania. Do you know what that means? That means he was able to give his employees a bonus for the first time in years. He was able to hire more people in our home area. I mean, this development touches so many lives and so many people, from the actual pulling of the natural gas out, and all of the indirect benefits and everything else that's out there.

Amen.

I thank the gentleman, my colleague, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague indicated, I am a small business owner. I am proud of the business that we started up in Corning, New York, and the many people that we have employed in that business, Mr. Speaker.

I also know that during times when people are in trouble or businesses are in trouble, they have to make the hard decision of laying some people off, and I can empathize and understand when those individuals are in that situation.

But what we're talking about here tonight, ladies and gentlemen, is just some commonsense reforms to allow the States to have the flexibility to do what is best for them in their local jurisdictions to try to empower the men and women from their districts so that they have the opportunity to go back to work. I wholeheartedly disagree with the concept that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguing for tonight to strip that language that would give States the flexibility to do commonsense reforms in unemployment, not taking away the unemployment program--no one is talking about doing that.

What we're talking about, ladies and gentlemen, is implementing the ability for States to have people get an education, or require people to get a GED, to give them tools so that when they go into the marketplace they have the ability to get a paycheck again rather than an unemployment check. That should be a goal that we in Washington, D.C., share across both aisles, and we should send the message to America, You know what? We get it in Washington. We don't necessarily have all the answers here. We should defer to the people closer to the people back in our States and in our local communities.

This is what our proposal is about. That is where these commonsense reforms are coming from, and, again, no one is talking about taking out the net that's associated with unemployment insurance. We're talking about commonsense reforms that will give people the tools to get back to work and take care of themselves.

Well, I thank my colleague from Colorado for hosting this Special Order tonight and for truly engaging in a conversation we need to have with America.

And I would like to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Ohio, when Mr. Johnson spoke so eloquently about the need for a comprehensive energy policy, an all-of-the-above approach to getting us off of foreign sources of energy once and for all. I think Mr. Johnson really hit the nail on the head with his description of the American Dream, or exceptionalism, and the ability that in America we develop a plan; when we have a vision, we can accomplish anything.

And I don't know if you noticed, Mr. Gardner, I'm over here on the other side of the Chamber tonight. You know, I'm an individual who is proud to be a member of the Republican Party, and many of the times I'm standing on that side of the Chamber. But I am willing to come over on this side of the Chamber to speak tonight to say to my fellow colleagues across the aisle that my hand is open for us to join together on this issue and many issues that face Americans back at home, and this issue in particular because it impacts all of us, all 300 million people across America; because when we can commit ourselves, as the President did at the State of the Union, to developing a comprehensive energy policy of all of the above, I am confident that we can achieve that energy independence.

And tonight's discussion on the Keystone pipeline is an example of an administration and of folks engaging in old-school politics rather than focusing on good, sound policy that is going to achieve that dream of energy independence because, as my colleagues have articulated, this project has been fully vetted, years of environmental studies and reviews. The primary agency, FERC, who had the responsibility to oversee the project, came to the conclusion that there were no significant environmental impacts that were associated with this project.

And it was on the verge of approval at the Department of State whose, if I remember correctly, primary mission is to deal with diplomatic issues. Because this pipe crosses an international border, the President used the final act from an agency who is focused on diplomatic issues to reach in and, for political purposes, say no.

I applaud the gentleman from Arizona, and I associate myself with his words, that we have given another chance to the President to do what is right in our and my opinion. This is a project that is ready to go. It will put 20,000 people back to work, and that's what we've been talking about here for months is improving this economy: jobs, jobs, jobs. And with the stroke of a pen, the President said no to 20,000 jobs and 100,000 jobs on top of that. And he put an obstacle in the barrier of his own State of the Union message that we are going to accomplish energy independence with an all-of-the-above approach by taking action a week before and saying, for political purposes, we're not going to be able to achieve that goal.

That has to stop, ladies and gentlemen. I'm proud to be part of this freshman class that has come in November 2010, and I fundamentally believe that we are changing the conversation in Washington to focusing on policy over politics. And this is an example, under this pipeline project, that is going to be directly related to that change in conversation in Washington because it's a commonsense type of approach to the job.

It's about focusing on people, getting them back to work, committing ourselves to a vision of energy independence, which is so critical to our future, and also so critical to our future in the manufacturing sector, because if we can get energy from domestic supplies here, and we can secure those energy sources long term, we're going to have lower utility rates, manufacturers are going to invest in America again, and we're going to start building things again. That has to be the cornerstone of what we're talking about. And the Keystone pipeline is but an example of that.

One last point I would like to address. We here in Washington can impact people every day, and this is an example of that impact in a positive way, because if we put the Keystone pipeline online, every time an American goes to the pump to fill up his gas tank or her gas tank, you will see the immediate results of it in a lower price, unless we continue down the policy that the President has committed us to in not constructing this pipeline. Every penny counts in this economy.

So I'm proud to be down here on the floor tonight to talk about this key issue and also the bigger issue of making sure that we stay focused on the American Dream of energy independence.

And with that, I wholeheartedly join my colleagues tonight.

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

I rise today in great agreement with my colleague from California on the other side of the aisle. What she has articulated before us in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, is an instruction to the conferees, of which I am one, to get our job done. I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.

Also, there is a tremendous amount of agreement when it comes to the payroll tax extension to get an extension for at least a year, to extend unemployment benefits, and also to do what we have to do in Washington, D.C., in regards to our providers under Medicare with our doc fix.

We have proposed and passed in this Chamber before the end of the year a 1-year proposal on the payroll tax extension fully paid for, a 2-year proposal on our doc fix fully paid for. Those are long-term solutions that have been offered by our side of the aisle, adopted in a bipartisan fashion before the end of the year, and sent to the Senate to act upon.

The reality of the situation finds us in a position where the Senate has not done its job. And my colleague from California is correct. A lot of it had to do with the fact that the Senate ran out of time, and they reverted to classic, old political ways of doing business: passing legislation at 3 o'clock, 2 o'clock in the morning, waiting until the last minute, and putting forth a product that only allowed us to kick the can 2 months down the road.

We can do better. We need to do better. The proposal that came out of this Chamber was a start in that right direction. It is time that we join together and we hit this long-term solution put forth for the American people because they deserve no less.

I would be remiss if we did not identify the fact that we as conferees were here over the Christmas break. We were here trying to champion the cause for making sure we put policy into law, not achieve political gamesmanship or wins. It is time for us to focus on policy and put politics aside. Hardworking taxpayers deserve that today in America.

I, for one, will join my colleague on the other side of the aisle in the tremendous amount of agreement that I think we have going into this conference and the sentiment of getting the job done in time, not waiting until the last minute, coming up with a long-term solution of at least a year on our payroll tax extension, at least 2 years for our doctors who are getting reimbursed under Medicare, and take care of the unemployment situation.

But I would have to disagree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle when she says that unemployment benefits are some sort of economic stimulus that should be expanded. I understand, and I have read what the economists have said on the economic impact of unemployment benefits.

My point would be, if that logic were true, then why don't we just extend unemployment benefits to every American and sit back and watch the economy blossom. The fundamental truth is--and it's time to be open and honest with the American people about it--that the economy is not going to strengthen based on government expansion, government spending. It's going to strengthen on a commitment to small-business America laying the foundation upon which the private sector knows that there is certainty, there is confidence in the market, and they have the ability to know what the rules are going to be for years to come, not on a month-by-month basis.

I urge my colleagues in the other Chamber, in the U.S. Senate, to heed that fundamental message. We can no longer, in Washington, D.C., believe that short-term policy is the best we can do for America. Hardworking taxpayers deserve better than that, and small business owners across America need to know what the rules are with certainty and for years so that they can make the investments to put our hardworking taxpayer Americans back to work.

That's what we stand for on this side of the aisle; and that is what I am hopeful, going into this conference, we will be able to produce out of this payroll bill, unemployment extension, and our doc fix.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to respond to my colleague on the other side of the aisle who just spoke in regard to when it comes to unemployment benefit extensions.

What we have to do, in my opinion, is set the framework upon which jobs in America could be created. We just had an example of this last week. I so hope our President tonight in this very Chamber comes and explains his decision to reject American jobs being created through the Keystone pipeline, because there is a project that has been identified; and it will be implemented in a way that would create an immediate 20,000 new jobs for men and women in America.

That will go a long way to solving our unemployment problems in the United States, not just extending unemployment benefits. But as we take up the issue of extending unemployment benefits, we need to do better. We owe it to hardworking taxpayers of America to come up with solutions and reforms in our unemployment benefits programs that give them the tools, the resources to be reemployed.

I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague on the other side of the aisle that I don't believe the majority of Americans wants to be unemployed. They want to get back to work.

So in our reforms that were passed in this Chamber before the end of the year, we talk about such things as requiring GEDs, high school education equivalency diplomas, high school degrees so that people could have that basic educational benefit that will give them the tools to get back to work. We should be focusing together in a bipartisan manner, Democrat and Republican, on reforms that are going to give those tools to our unemployed Americans rather than just giving a check.

There is an old adage that I grew up with, being the youngest of 12 children, that was passed on for generations in our family, which was: You give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. You teach a man or woman to fish, you feed him and her and their entire family for a lifetime.

That is the mantra. That is the foundation upon which we should take up unemployment extension in this conference and join hands to implement going forward.

Again, I have to highlight the fact that what we see out of the other Chamber in the United States Senate is a willingness to just achieve what is politically possible, to only achieve what could be called a political win. It is time to stop focusing on politics. Hardworking taxpayers in America deserve us to focus on good policy.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again I'm heartened because, as the gentlelady spoke, I came to the conclusion we're in full agreement. House Republicans are in full agreement, so that gives us hope, ladies and gentlemen. That gives us hope going into this conference that what we're going to be able to put together with the doc fix and how our providers are paid under Medicare is a solution that will be a long- term solution to this situation that politically is required to go through all the time because of this doc fix situation we find ourselves in.

But I would remind this Chamber and I would remind all of my colleagues that we are in the midst of a fiscal crisis in this Nation that needs to be respected. And as we talk about making

sure that our providers under Medicare are taken care of on a long-term basis, we need to go into this discussion with our eyes wide open, and that is that fiscal crisis forces us to cover these costs, for us to be responsible in Washington, DC, for one time and pay for what we are doing and live within our means.

That's what our proposal for 2 years out of the House Chamber before the end of year passed by a bipartisan fashion did--took care of 2 years of the doc fix, fully paid for and offset. What we need to do is bring that attitude into the conference to get it taken care of.

I so heartily agree with my colleague, the esteemed lady, and her position in coming up with a long-term solution for our doctors under Medicare. But we do need to be responsible and we have to offset and make sure that it is paid for. That is the reality of the situation we find ourselves in in America in the fiscal crisis we now face, and it will be the reality of our Nation's fiscal prosperity going forward if we so choose to honor it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do have to remind my good friend on the other side of the aisle that, on December 22, House Republicans were here. We were sitting in the conference ready to get to work, and conferees on their side of the aisle had not even been named by that point in time.

I was here over the New Year's break, Thursday, Friday, working on this issue in preparation for the conference. Where was the Senate? Nowhere to be found. So let us be straight with the American people. Let's be open and honest with the American people that who's ready to do the work is us in the House Chamber on the House Republican side. We demonstrated it at the end of 2011 by staying here. We may have been hurt politically or lost that political battle. But you know what? The American people want us to do not what is politically the winning strategy, but what is the best policy for the American people. And that's what we stood up for.

Maybe that message didn't get home to the men and women back in our districts immediately. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I went back in my district and I had the question presented to me at my local church, local grocery store, why were you still down there? What was the problem? What were you fighting for? And we went through the details of the policy that we're talking about here with the payroll tax rate, the unemployment extension, and the Medicare reimbursement for our providers under Medicare, and they said: Well, obviously, you needed to stay there to get it done. And that's what we have to do. We have to adopt the attitude of, we have been sent here to do the people's work. It's time not for us to wait until the last minute, I wholeheartedly agree. But it's also time that we just do not leave town because we've accomplished what was politically possible or what was in our political interest. I wholeheartedly am committed to finding the real solutions, the real policy initiatives, and that's what we are standing for on this side of the aisle.

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

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

I so appreciate my colleague reminding me of the offsets on the doc fix bill. And I would just like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this entire Chamber that in the House-passed bill that was sent to the Senate, 90 percent--90 percent--of those offsets were recommended and

supported by the President of the United States, President Obama.

Now, I'm not saying that that's the final thing that we can agree to. By no means am I saying that. But what I will say is that we did our work. We found common ground with the President's own recommendations and policies that he supported and sent it to the Senate. At this point in time, I still remind the American people who is at the table: the House. Where is the United States Senate? And may I remind the Speaker and the American people, I say the entire Senate but, in particular, those on the other side of the aisle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Long).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I'd just remind my good colleague on the other side of the aisle that we were here. The House Republicans were here December 22. December 26, conferees weren't even named yet. I was here Thursday and Friday of New Year's working on the issue.

We're ready to do the work. But there is one thing that we will not yield on, that we have demonstrated years in Washington, DC, of fiscal irresponsibility. And until we came in, this freshman class in November 2010, there was an attitude of, Don't worry about how we're going to cover it; don't worry about how we're going to pay for it.

That attitude has changed, and that's why I'm proud to yield 2 minutes to a fellow freshman Member from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say simply this, that we wholeheartedly agree with the general sentiment that has been brought to the House Chamber today, with the motion that is before this body, that we need to do our work in the conference. We cannot wait until the last minute. We wholeheartedly join in that sentiment, and we have demonstrated that commitment by what we have already done. Our actions should speak louder than our words.

The House Republicans were here on December 22, asking the Senate to come back to the table and do the people's work. And we are ready to do that work now. We need the Senate to come to the table in good faith, finalize this package on a long-term basis, bring certainty to our payroll tax rates, bring certainty to our providers, how they get paid under Medicare, and take care of the unemployment extension situation. But we must go into this conference with our eyes wide open.

We were sent to Washington in November 2010 because the American people recognized the fiscal crisis that is coming to our shores in America if we don't get our debt under control, and the habit that creates it; the spending problem of Washington, D.C., corrected once and for all, or we will not have a future in America. And that is unacceptable to me, as a father of two, and as the father of three, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) on the other side of the aisle, also indicated. We are fighting for our children and our grandchildren who have yet to see the face of this Earth.

So I join with my colleagues in sending a message that we will do the work. The hardworking taxpayers in America deserve no less. The U.S. Senate should come to the table, find a solution to these issues, and we will wholeheartedly join hands on our side of the aisle when we do it in a responsible way that will take care of this situation in a long-term fashion, not the short-term Band-Aid that Washington, D.C., for so long has thought is good policy at the expense of the hardworking taxpayers of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Commuter Protection Act, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. This bipartisan, responsible legislation brings oversight of our nation's federally funded highway system back to the United States Department of Transportation, giving them the ability to determine whether tolls imposed by regional and state toll authorities are just and reasonable. This was an authority the Department of Transportation had previously, and one I believe should be restored. Importantly, they would only have oversight when, and if, there was a complaint about a toll practice.

Representing the 29th Congressional District of the great state of New York, this is an issue that impacts my constituents directly. Recent actions taken by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey are indicative of the abusive toll structure that can be imposed when agencies are left unchecked. The Port Authority recently raised toll rates for all of its bridges and tunnels, which, when fully implemented, will charge 5-axle tractor-semitrailers $105 per crossing. Mister Speaker, this is a 163% cost jump, with rates three times higher than Philadelphia, the next highest city for tolls on trucks.

Mr. Speaker, a toll increase like this has a tremendously negative impact on my constituents who transport goods in and out of New York City. I have heard directly from many of them, like Ken Johnson who owns Leonards Express, a trucking company in Ontario County, about the harm this would do for his business and others throughout Western New

York and the Southern Tier. Additionally, it is clear that ultimately consumers will bear the burden of paying higher prices for goods they buy in stores.

While I understand making needed safety improvements to our nation's roads necessitates increasing tolls from time to time, I do not understand--nor has the Port Authority given--the justification for a rise of this magnitude. Thus, we need the Department of Transportation to be able to review these toll structures, and others across the country, to ensure taxpayer interests are being best served. Consumers and businesses should not be forced to pay the price for mismanagement, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support the Commuter Protection Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today with a few of my colleagues to talk about an issue that, I think, could be a game-changer for the United States of America, which is the natural gas development potential that we find in the shale formations throughout the United States.

I have been privileged to cofound the Marcellus Shale Caucus here in the U.S. House of Representatives with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mark Critz, who will be joining us shortly. The purpose of the caucus is to come at this issue from an objective, scientific, database point of view in order to talk about the pros and cons of natural gas development in America and, in particular, of the Marcellus shale formation, which is located in my district of western New York, throughout Pennsylvania, and in other areas of the Northeast.

One of the things we wanted to highlight today is the indirect benefits that natural gas development will have on our country and probably most importantly from an economic point of view at this time when we face in our Nation's history some of the most enduring and high levels of unemployment we have ever seen.

What we are fundamentally talking about are jobs, not only the jobs related to extracting the natural gas, itself, and laying the pipeline to transport that natural gas to its markets, but the jobs that come as a result of the indirect benefits of that natural gas production. What I and my colleagues are, hopefully, going to talk about tonight are things like the benefits to the public local municipalities with regard to the tax base, road construction and the improvements of the road structures that are located within the areas upon which natural gas development is occurring as a result of the shale formations.

Through these conversations, I think that we will be able to establish that the benefits of extracting natural gas in America will be that game-changing event when it comes to domestic supplies of energy that come from American sources--an event we have never seen before in our lifetimes or potentially in the lifetimes of our children. So I would like to preface this entire conversation by laying some preliminary remarks based upon some concerns that have been raised as to natural gas development in America.

I travel my district. I go to many town hall meetings and get out in front of the people. At times, this issue can become sensitive in the sense of the environmental concerns that are raised. I have always taken the position that this issue should only be dealt with when we can establish that natural gas exploration and development in America can be done in a safe, clean, responsible manner. That's why, tonight, I am going to read some quotes to you, Mr. Speaker, and to those who may be tuning in and watching this conversation, because there has been a lot of discussion about the potential threat to our aquifers and to our water supplies as a result of hydrofracking and natural gas development out of the shale and tight sand formations. For the record, I would just like to quote some of our leading environmental government officials in America:

``When it comes to natural gas development, the key is to make sure that we say, 'Engineers, make sure we do it safely, without harming water supplies,' and I think we're well on the way. On chemicals, we don't have data that shows those chemicals showing up in someone's well. Over time, that may not be a true statement. Unless there's a problem with well construction, hydrofracking chemicals shouldn't end up in aquifers,'' Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA for the United States of America, October 14, 2011.

``I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process, itself, has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing,'' Lisa Jackson, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency for the United States of America, May 24, 2011.

You know, these are comments coming from our EPA Director, but then there's comments like, ``With respect to hydraulic (fracturing), because it occurs so far underground, we don't know any examples of (contamination) on public lands. But it demonstrates the importance of ensuring we have wellbore integrity up and down the entire wellbore.'' That's our Interior Secretary, Kenneth Salazar, testifying to the House Natural Resources Committee on November 16, 2011.

I read these quotes to tell the American people and to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the concern about the environmental impacts to our aquifers, though legitimate, I think have been fully vetted and have had a long, serious, scientific review and approach in determining that risk is not what many people in America are making it out to be. And again I reiterate my position on this matter, that we need to look at this resource through the economic opportunity that it represents to us in our districts, in our homes, but to us as a Nation.

And we have to look at this economic opportunity and this natural resource potential based on making sure that it is done in a safe and reliable way, but we also have to look at it from a third point of view, and that is the national security implications of tapping this domestic supply of energy. Natural gas and oils are now being found all throughout America. They are also being found right here in the United States of America in the shale formation such as the Marcellus shale, the Utica shale formation, and also the tight sands formations that exist here in our Nation.

I don't think I have to speak long or hard to the American people or to you, Mr. Speaker, to explain what impact that would have on our national security. If we can establish an energy supply such that is estimated to be under our own ground in natural gas and oil, we will not be sending millions of billions, if not trillions of dollars, to people in the Middle East who have publicly declared that we are enemy number one. I think this is good public policy to promote.

On the indirect benefits, I just want to highlight three examples of people that are benefiting from this from my district.

Now in New York in the 29th Congressional District, we have not had any development in the Marcellus shale on a recent basis because of the moratorium in the Department of Environmental Conservation on the State level coming up with the regulations to ensure that this is done safely and responsibly. But I have the privilege of representing a district that's just adjacent to the northern tier of Pennsylvania, adjacent to my good friend, GT Thompson of Pennsylvania, who will speak shortly, where we have had a spillover effect of economic opportunity to the district.

I could talk to you about Dalrymple Holdings, it's a long, family- held company right outside of my hometown of Corning, New York, that has been involved in highway infrastructure construction in Chemung County for years and counties surrounding it. But now they've expanded beyond. The business has seen a tangible impact from the development across the border.

Mr. Dalrymple has reported to me that he has undertaken contracts for total construction of 65 miles of rural roads, a value over $22 million of road construction being fully funded by private investment. Let me stress that again, Mr. Speaker, $22 million of private dollars going into road construction upon which Mr. Dalrymple and his company have benefited.

Now, it's not just Mr. Dalrymple. I know this man, he's a good man, and in that $22 million worth of additional investment in his company and in the projects that it represents, he has been able to create and hire over 60 new men and women averaging $40 per hour to his business to fulfill those contracts. Those are 60 families that now benefit directly as a result of this development occurring in the northern tier of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dalrymple and I share a common background in the sense of he's a small business owner, I was a small business owner before I came here to Congress. And I could tell you there is nothing, nothing like looking at a man or a woman when you hire them and bring them into your business, and you put them to work.

When you have sat in that position, you know when you look at that person you're not just benefiting that person, that person becomes part of your family as a small business owner, and

you're taking care of him or her, but you're also taking care of his family, his children by putting food on their table, by providing extra dollars for their children and their education. That is the American ideal. That's the American Dream, just to give someone the opportunity to go to work to take care of their families.

And I also will bring to the record tonight a story of our local dry cleaning company. I could not believe it, Mr. Speaker. I went over to pick up the family dry cleaning, and I was talking to Rick over in Painted Post, New York, just adjacent to my hometown of Corning. And he said, Tom, come back here, I want to show you something.

And we went into his back room and he showed me piles of uniforms that were used by industrial workers, by the workers on the fields in the northern tier of Pennsylvania. He related to me that he was adding an additional $5,000-plus revenue to his business coffers every month. He talked about how he was able to give bonuses to his employees because of that new opportunity. He was another small business owner that knew what it was to take care of not only his employees, but their families and to have them share in the rewards of the hard work that they put together in that dry cleaning operation.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if we don't talk a little bit about the public benefits that have been brought to my attention. You know, I look to our county executive in Chemung County, adjacent to my home county of Steuben County, and I see that his county, a small geographical county, mind you, is leading New York State in sales tax growth. He's leading New York State in hotel tax revenue increases--a small county leading the great Empire State of New York by what is going on in the northern tier of Pennsylvania.

And I would be remiss if I didn't tell you the story when I spent the day down in the northern tier of Pennsylvania and met with the commissioners of Bradford County and they told me about the history of their tax sales. You know these sales, Mr. Speaker, these are the sales of people who cannot pay their real property tax bill, lose their property at an auction.

I've been to those auctions. I've looked at families that have lost their property because they couldn't pay the tax bill. Well, in Bradford County, I believe in my friend's district, Mr. Thompson, they used to have sales of 100, 150 parcels is my understanding. I know we have had them in Steuben County and Chemung County in New York--and guess how many parcels went up for tax sale in the last year or two? Essentially zero, maybe one or two over those 2-year periods. That is a fundamental shift in what is going on in our part of the country, and hopefully it could be shared across America.

And as that one commissioner told me as we talked about some of the concerns and issues that have to be dealt with, and traffic is always a concern that is raised, he said I'd much rather see traffic lines in my home county than unemployment lines. And I, when I heard that line, I said, Doug, that is exactly what we're talking about. As a commissioner of Bradford County, you nailed it right on the head, and that we are talking about creating traffic lines of economic opportunity and development for generations of Americans rather than compounding and growing unemployment lines.

And so we will come at this issue of making sure that it is a clean and safe resource that is developed, but let us focus and join hands in bringing this opportunity for America forward.

My colleague from Pennsylvania has joined us. Mr. Thompson, if you would like to comment, I yield to you.

I appreciate my colleague from Pennsylvania for joining us here this evening. If I could continue this conversation with you, I'm sure you've done what I have done on numerous times. When I have traveled home, up state Route 15, right through the heart of your district on the way home to Corning, just over the Pennsylvania border, oftentimes I would take a few moments and get off the road and kind of go into the local communities there as we filled up the car or we got a cup of coffee. Most of the time I drive with a staff member who lives in the district, and I'd say: Let's go off road a couple of miles and see what's going on. I could tell you, every time I have pulled into a gas station there, I have been reminded of the benefits of what this can be to a community in that the parking lots are full. I had to wait in line to fill up the car because there's a lot of trucks. There's a lot of workers. There are a lot of folks coming and going out of those convenient marts.

And some of the most compelling stories I had, I can remember two vividly, coming down the road, pulling off at one of these gas stations and one of these convenience marts and talking to the lady behind the counter. And we did it twice. I can remember vividly saying, what does this mean to you? What's going on here? What's causing all this? Kind of playing dumb, obviously, I had an idea of what was causing it. But in both circumstances, the response was amazing. Yeah, it's not the same community. What they would say is that it wasn't the same community as when I grew up here, but, boy, everyone seems to be doing well. Everybody seems to be happy. And one lady, she expressed the conversation because she was working a side job and her husband was a contractor. And she said, my husband used to get up at 2, 3 o'clock in the morning until this came along, and they were receiving a small check, not a retirement size check as a result of this, but a nice, stable source of additional income coming into their household. And she looked at me and she said, it just kind of takes the edge off. It just kind of took the edge off at the end of the month having to pick and choose what bill they may be able to pay that month and which one they may have to put off for another 30 days.

We've all been there. I know growing up in that type of family and when we first started in our private sector life, my wife and I putting our family business together and struggling. There's a lot of stress at the end of the month. Probably that's why I lost my hair and maybe why you lost your hair. But it was amazing to look that one lady in the eye who said, I just appreciate the fact that he doesn't have to get up at 2, 3 o'clock in the morning anymore, and we've got a little side income that's going to take care of their kids.

That conversation you're not having in America right now in many places, but we're having it in your district. And not so much in our district in the sense because we don't have the natural gas going right now, but we've seen the positive impacts like that. And I don't know if my colleague has any similar stories to those two young ladies that I refer to.

And I so appreciate my colleague, and it is the sentiment, and I know our time is winding up. But one thing that also touched me. I've done a few tours in the northern tier of Pennsylvania in your district, and I've gone back on my own to go and verify information that has been presented to me. And I came back at the last, over the recess, over the holiday, I came back, and one thing struck me as I was driving home, and that's when talking about having the ability to educate their grandchildren and the children from these family farms, and I know you've had those conversations, I've had those conversations, we down here in Washington have spent billions if not trillions of dollars of public taxpayer money to try to lift people up out of despair; through the welfare society, entitlement society we have invested billions, trillions of dollars here. And look what happened based on private economic opportunity and development in the northern tier of Pennsylvania. You have generations of families that are now lifting themselves out of poverty and out of conditions that we are spending billions down here, they're doing it on their own, and I think it makes them a stronger individual in our society and it unites families for generations, and it empowers families for generations to control their own destiny. That's what the American Dream is all about.

So I appreciate my colleague joining me this evening and having this conversation. And I so appreciate the invite coming to your district and your coming to my district and our continuing the efforts to educate the American people on the benefits of natural gas development in America, the benefits of Marcellus shale and through the Marcellus Shale Caucus getting the best science and information out to the American people.

With that, I thank my colleague, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.