Mike Kelly

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank my friend. I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield to my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Richard Hudson.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. Your comments are very timely and very needed. At this time, I would like to have Mr. Steve Stockman from Texas 36 address the situation.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Texas. At this time, I would like to yield to Jim Bridenstine, who represents Oklahoma 51.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine. At this time, I would like to yield to the Member from Mississippi 1, Mr. Alan Nunnelee.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a number of Members tonight. I think this is a day that we really have to reflect back and look at mixed messages. Back in 2009 at a NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, the President said: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. Yesterday, the President stood in front of the United Nations and said: Some may disagree, but I believe America is exceptional, in part because we have shown a willingness through the sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our own narrow interest, but for the interest of all. I would just like to suggest to the President that ``integrity'' is defined by ``saying what you mean and meaning what you say.'' Taking a moment to express something that may or may not be the true core value of who you are or what you believe is not acceptable. What makes us truly exceptional as Americans is we are there every day in every way to those who we told we would be. The U.S. has the most sophisticated arms export control system in the world. It has commonly been called the gold standard. That term ``gold standard'' was used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Yet this Arms Trade Treaty does nothing at all to improve our system. We not only have laws on the export of arms; we actually enforce them. People can and regularly do go to jail for breaking those laws. Now, the Arms Trade Treaty will not improve the systems in other countries, which, in many cases, actually have no systems at all. There is a lot more to running an effective arms export control system than simply signing a piece of paper and using your signature to express something that is not truly in your heart. There is so much vagueness with this Arms Trade Treaty. Our regulations describing what we control are the most sophisticated in the world. It is really extremely difficult to evade them with word games. We mean what we say, and we say what we mean. It's just integrity. Simple. The Arms Trade Treaty, by contrast, is so vague that it offers many opportunities for nations to claim they are complying with the treaty while really carrying on as normal. This has the effect of legitimizing the actions of bad actors. We have a regular system for actually making the decisions about what we will export and to whom we will export. This system takes many things into account, but it is fundamentally based on upholding the United States' national interest. It is not controlled by exporters, unlike in Europe, where exporter interests actually dominate their policies. This Arms Trade Treaty will do nothing to change that, but it will give exporter-dominated nations a shield to hide behind. Every nation-state can control the arms trade if it is truly willing to do so--and the United States is ready to help--but few have meaningful laws about the arms trade, and even fewer make any attempt to enforce them. The United States has two major programs to help the serious countries: First, the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance--and it goes by the term EXBS--is run from the State Department. The second is the Humanitarian Mine Action Program, HMA, which includes stockpile conventional munitions assistance, intended to assist in the disposal, demilitarization, security, and management of explosive stockpiles, which is run by the Department of Defense. According to the State Department, the U.S. has contributed over $2 billion to reduce the harmful effects of illicit, indiscriminately used conventional weapons through the Conventional Weapons Destruction Program, which includes the HMA. In other words, the United States actually backs its words with money and investment, and we have made that attempt throughout the whole world. Listen, our arms export control system is the gold standard of the world. We are not greedy with our gold. We are willing to share our practical knowledge with nation-states that are serious about arms export controls. Let us not fall for the fool's gold of a treaty that truly overpromises and underdelivers. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to the Members of Congress from around the country who joined me tonight in this Special Order to oppose the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I would ask the citizens of the United States, as Mr. Stockman said, to please wake up. We are losing our country day by day in ways that we do not recognize, in ways that we do not know, and, truly, the sacrifice that this Nation has made over the years is of our 1.4 million men and women in uniform who have died to preserve those personal freedoms and liberties. This is not a good day for the United States. This is a day when the United States lowered its expectations in its exceptionalism to something that does not truly protect the United States and that has a dire effect on our sovereignty as a Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise In strong support of H.R. 2449, a bipartisan bill to extend the current U.S.-Korea civil nuclear agreement for two years. This year we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-South Korea alliance. Over the decades, South Korea has become a key U.S. ally in Asia and we stand shoulder to shoulder in political, strategic, military, cultural, and other issues. One of these crucial issues is energy. This extension will allow the U.S. and Korea to enter into a new era of energy partnership. The current nuclear cooperation agreement is due to expire in March 2014 and its prompt extension is vital to avoid trade disruptions. It is critical that we uphold the reputation of the U.S. as a stable and reliable trading partner, in light of the energy industry's long- lead items and use of long-term contracts for nuclear components, fuel and services. Ultimately this is about jobs: red, white, and blue American jobs. Billions of dollars in U.S. exports and thousands of U.S. jobs are at stake if we fail. This is about jobs for U.S. companies such as Westinghouse, which is headquartered in Cranberry, PA, in my own district. Westinghouse, which employs about 9000 employees in the U.S., has been a leader in energy cooperation with Korea for nearly four decades. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, India has been our strategic partner for years and we should continue to strengthen this relationship. One way to do so is by enhancing our trade partnership. U.S.-India bilateral trade is nearly $100 billion--up from barely $15 billion in 2000, but we can do better. Unfortunately, India's recent trend towards raising trade barriers has hampered this relationship, and both American firms and American workers have been on the losing end of these policies. These discriminatory policies jeopardize manufacturing and other jobs back at home in Pennsylvania. For example, India's system of cascading tariffs, taxes, and other import charges is often cost-prohibitive. The pronounced disparity between bound rates (rates that generally cannot be exceeded under WTO rules) and applied rates (the actual rates charged) means that India's average applied rate is among the highest in the world. Furthermore, India's trade-weighted average tariff rate is 8.2 percent versus the U.S. rate of 1.6 percent, burdening U.S. manufacturers and making U.S. exports cost-prohibitive for Indian consumers. Lastly, India's tariff schedule is hard to find in one public place and this lack of transparency and accessibility is also burdensome. By resolving these issues and seeking greater market-based reforms, we can strengthen the U.S.-India trade relationship and unleash the economic energy that will create prosperity for both the U.S. and India. This is a future worth striving towards.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I've heard so much about pay being frozen that I've got to tell you: the people that I represent in the Third Congressional District of western Pennsylvania wish their pay had been frozen. It has gone down steadily since 2010. We talk about the inability to get the economy going. I feel the same way--it's embarrassing--but at the end of the day, we are not benevolent monarchs. We are stewards of the taxpayers' moneys. All we are doing is talking about accountability. Only in Washington is ``accountability'' a bad word. In the private sector, ``accountability'' reigns. The market determines my accountability. That's what holds me accountable in coming from the private sector. Why is that so foreign here to, all of a sudden, have bills--to have things in front of us--that will help us to say to people in charge to hold people responsible and to hold people accountable?

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to explain a little bit about what's going on. The other day we talked a little bit about the dizzying effects of being on this floor, and somehow things get twisted around, so when you see people bumping off the walls you know it's because of the spin. Let me tell you what I'm talking about here today. When I walked on the floor today--and some of my friends did also--we passed the Capitol Police, passed all these people on the dais, we passed so many people on the way, and you would think that we are talking about every single person that works for the government. Now, the truth of the matter is that there are over 2.1 million people working for the government. That doesn't include the Army. It doesn't include the post office. That includes people who are out there. So the people that we are talking about that we want to hold accountable--and, my goodness, what an unusual effort for Congress to try and hold people accountable. Why in the world would you do that? Half of us wouldn't be back here. So we are talking about four-tenths of 1 percent. And as the President is fond of saying: ``Just do the arithmetic. Just do the arithmetic.'' It isn't everybody that you talked about. It's not all these folks that are sitting here tonight. It's not the Capitol Police that we walk by. It's not the people that clean our offices every night. It's none of those folks. It's the senior executives. Now, these poor people are going to be under such great duress by this that they're probably going to get their resumes together and that loud ``whoosh'' you hear is them running away from $199,000 a year jobs. Are you kidding me? You can't say that with a straight face about how are we ever going to keep qualified people here. I got to tell you something. I've got a lot of unemployed people back in northwest Pennsylvania that will line up for these jobs. Now, the $199,000, of course, is the top of it. But the real kicker is they can't go over $230,000 with their bonuses. These are people that are going to walk away from these jobs because we have the unmitigated gall to hold them accountable to the people who pay those wages, and that's the American taxpayers. That's who we are talking about. My goodness, have we fallen that far away from what this country was supposed to be? Now, here's all we are saying to them--and we came about this because in a hearing on the GSA we asked about why is Mr. Neely on leave with pay. The people at the GSA say: ``Well, you see, you don't understand, Congress. We don't have any mechanism to put them on leave without pay.'' I said: ``I have never heard anything like that.'' Of course I haven't heard it because I come from the private sector. We don't do that in the private sector. But what I did find out was they would love to have that. The people we put in charge of these agencies would actually love to be able to hold those that work for them accountable and responsible. So what did we give them? We gave them the ability to do that. They can fire somebody on the spot. But we didn't do anything about their due process. That person is still entitled to come back and any protections under the law he or she still gets. We can create an investigation on a leave without pay, but we also require that the agencies report to Congress every 45 days to let us know where the investigation is. My goodness, there's nothing harder in this body than trying to get information when there's an investigation under way. I just think that we've seen that the last couple of months, of: ``You want to get the information? Well, we can't talk about it now because there's an investigation going on.'' It doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense to the people I represent. Now, you know when we talk about protecting American workers and we talk about what our duty is here, we were elected by a group of people from districts all over this country to come and represent them. According to the IRS, there are 145 million Americans who pay taxes. They file their taxes every year. There's 300 million out there, but 145 million pay taxes. That's who it is that we are trying to protect. They're the ones that pay for every single thing that happens here. Or they cosign the note on the loan to keep this place floating. So I want you to look at this now. There are ``total Federal employees''--2.1 million. Now, this little red sliver--and it's really hard to see--remember, this represents four-tenths of 1 percent. As the President would say: ``It's all about the arithmetic. It's all about the arithmetic.'' I would say to my colleagues on both sides, it's all about the people we represent. I appreciate the spin. I appreciate the fact that you like to make every Capitol policeman think that he's unappreciated or she's unappreciated, or that everyone that works in our office is unappreciated, or that everybody from the private sector that works for this great Nation is unappreciated, but you know it's not true and you know what you are saying is not true. What I would love to see is for you to stand up on this floor and look at people and say, this is what's going on, and you know it's not true. You absolutely know it's not true, but you say it anyway. And why? Because it wears well. Thank you for bringing this legislation up, and thank you for protecting the American taxpayer.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side, I do have great respect for both of the gentlemen. It is not a question of respect for other Members of Congress. The question is: How much respect do we have for American taxpayers? I think sometimes we get too confused right here about the collegial atmosphere that has to exist. You know, if you don't talk nicely to each other, it can cause a problem. And I understand that. But we know each other. I have shared some very emotional moments with Mr. Cummings when he lost his nephew. I understand that. Steve--Mr. Lynch--and I know each other. It's not about the spin. Nobody is losing their due process under this. You know that. Again, I refer back to page 8, lines 15 through 17: An employee against whom an action is taken under this section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under section 7701 of this title. There is no reason for us to be having a conversation that again divides the Nation; and it divides people because we constantly want to make sure that everybody understands that one party is for one type of philosophy, the other party is not. You know, they don't ever want to take care of everybody. I'm talking about the American taxpayer here. I'm talking about the agencies. Mr. Cummings and I sat and listened to the people from the GSA; and when we asked them why are they placed on leave with pay when there is obviously an investigation going on, you knew about it. The IG came to you and told you that, in spite of that, you still bonused this gentleman. They gave him extra money for doing exactly what he was being investigated for. And we said: My goodness, why would you do that? And they said: Because we don't have any tools to do anything about it. We don't have the mechanism to do that. Why is it that we have to constantly widen the gap between what's right for America and what's just flat out right? This isn't about Democrats and Republicans trying to protect our friends who work here in the government. Of course I want to protect them. And I will guarantee you that if this is going to pass today, I guarantee you will not see a mass exodus of people who work for the government saying, oh, my gosh, let me get my resume together; I've got to get out of here. They're not leaving. And why aren't they leaving? Because these are good jobs. We're talking about the senior executives. We're not talking about every gal and guy. We're not talking about those in uniform who protect us. We're talking about the senior executives, those to whom we have given the most responsibility and authority. We're talking about giving them a tool to hold those who work under them responsible. They don't have it now. I don't want to walk away or turn my back on people who work every day for this government. These are darn good jobs. Please tell me, if it's such a terrible place to work, why do so many people apply for work?

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. No, I will not yield. Mr. Lynch, we've been yielding for far too long, and I will be glad to yield to you when I'm done here, and that's up to the chairman. But I have to tell you, why do we constantly put this spin on to divide this body? If I were a manager and I were put in charge and given the responsibility to do things, but then told, Look, you have the responsibility, you better perform to the right level here, but by the way, when you have people who are not acting appropriately, you don't have any tool to change that. You don't have any way to reprimand them, to call them forward. It just doesn't make sense. And I'll tell you who it doesn't make sense to. It doesn't make sense to all those folks I described before. I've got people back in western Pennsylvania working two jobs. This is mom and dad working a job. Why? Because they have this tremendous ability to self-reliance, and they know they have children they've got to take care of. They want to feed them, they want to clothe them, they want to educate them. They want to be part of the system that has made sense to so many people for so long. Why do people come to this country? My goodness, they come across the ocean in inner tubes to try to get here. They crawl across the desert to get here. They don't get here because they don't like us. They get here because they love the opportunity. All I want to do is give the managers of these agencies the same tools that everybody else has. This is not about trying to make an employee look bad. This is about holding an employee accountable. When is it that we got to the point that accountability is a political agenda? Really? Really? And we're going to take any time we can get to try and make the other party look bad, because I've watched here for 2\1/2\ years. It's not enough to win the vote. You've got to make the other side look really, really bad. It's not enough to say we just didn't agree on this and we moved to something else. No, the point is to say, you know what, this is how horrible these people are. They don't care about you. They don't care about your kids or your grandchildren. They really want to hurt you. No, we've shared too much time together. I don't sit in any committee with anybody, whether from our party or from your party, that says, I came here to destroy America. They don't say that. They don't say, I came here to divide America. They don't say that. They say, I came here because I thought I had a calling and I want to make a difference. This bill is so simple. It is so much common sense. Really, this is a problem, to hold people accountable for a job they're not doing right? We didn't strip them of anything in due process. They still have their rights, everything. And it's not for everybody; it's for the senior executives at the top. The top. That's all it's about. So, Mr. Chairman, I've got to tell you, this is so common sense. It's what we do in the private sector every day. I don't want it to become a political battle over something that makes sense to the American people.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. For those of you up in the gallery, please put on your seatbelts. Again, this room is spinning so fast right now that it's hard to determine what's being said or why it's even being said. So, please, put them on. I don't want you to fall out of the gallery in trying to keep up with what's being said.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. My comment, Mr. Speaker, is I'm concerned about the safety of those watching today from the gallery. I just wanted them to be aware that there is a definite turntable here, and I'm really surprised that anybody can walk straight when they leave this room because of the spin that's put on everything. So my concern is for the safety of those watching today. In going back to February 6, 1788, James Madison said to us, ``If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'' I've got to tell you that Madison is still alive, and he is alive on both sides of the aisle. What amazes me sometimes is how we get so far away from what it is that we are trying to do and who it is we are trying to protect. Now, I've heard the terms that--do you know what?-- we're not protecting those who work for America. Let me tell you about those who work for America. When I come out of my church on Sunday morning--out of St. Paul's, the 8 o'clock mass--I see all kinds of people who work for America. When I'm down at the Kmart, doing my shopping, I see all kinds of people who work for America. When I'm in Erie, Pennsylvania, I see all kinds of people who work for America--the same in Meadville, Pennsylvania, and the same in Butler, Pennsylvania. So I'm sometimes confused about who it is we're trying to protect. If it's truly those who work for America, it is those who work for America. All of these folks behind me work for America. All of the people at our homes work for America, do they not? Now the question is: Who looks after those people, those American taxpayers? When there is an abuse, my goodness, have we gotten to the point at which our only concern is for those who get a check that says it came from the United States Government? I know who funds America. It is hardworking American taxpayers. That is why it's so unbelievable for me to sit here and listen to how we're not protecting those who work for America. This is not about the men and women, the guys and gals that go to work every day for the government. The ranking member knows that this is not about stripping them of their rights. It truly is not. In fact, if you go to page 8, lines 15 through 17: An employee against whom an action is taken under this section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under section 7701 of this title. Nobody is being stripped of anything. What we're doing is taking care of all those people who elected us to come here. I've got to tell you, I wasn't just elected as a Republican to come and take care of only those folks in my district that are registered Republican. I was sent here to represent everybody. I've never sat back and said, You know what? This isn't in the best interest of my Republican constituents. It helps my Democrat constituents. Since I'm a Republican, I'll game it, I'll spin it so that I can't vote that way. That's absolutely stupid. Again, how far have we gotten from the initial message of what it is we're trying to do? The Government Employee Accountability Act--when we had the GSA hearing and the ranking member sat there, I said, Why is Mr. Neely on leave with pay when you know the IG had him under investigation? In fact, you bonused him money for the very same event that he's being investigated for. You bonused him, and then you let him go home to do what he wants to do. He's on leave with pay. When I go back home, people ask me all the time, and I see their faces, and I can't look at them and say, You know what? What you don't understand is that in Washington, you can do the wrong thing and there's no accountability. Now, if you're back home in the private sector and you do the wrong thing, you're held accountable. What you have to understand is that you work in the private sector, not the public sector. They cry out for equal treatment. Not special treatment, not to be handled differently than anybody else. But they say, Mr. Kelly, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. Should not both sides of this aisle be concerned with what's right for the American taxpayer? Should we not be concerned with what's right for American citizens? Should we not say to these same people who run these agencies, Look, we know you don't have the tools that you need--and that's what I was told by the GSA, that they put Mr. Neely on leave because they don't have any mechanism to do otherwise. I don't want to keep beating up Jeff Neely, but by the same token, I refuse to keep beating up American taxpayers. If I don't have the stomach, if I don't have the backbone to do what's right, and if I can't walk a straight line when I leave here--this is not about taking the rights away from people who work for the government. Come on, guys. You know that. Oh, my goodness. We've got to get together on this because this is not making sense to me. This looks like the back end of a frat party where everybody's kind a walking crooked coming out, trying to figure out what it is they did for the last 3 or 4 hours. I've got to tell you that this is common sense for America. If we cannot protect those who sent us here, if we cannot restore the trust of those who sent us here, if we're going to come here and debate and make a mockery and spin it to the point where it confuses the American people--this is not about taking anybody's rights away. This is about reinforcing the responsibilities of those who work for the American taxpayer, and that is all of us, both Republican and Democrat. I've got to tell you what I've said before. There is no way I'll ever go back to northwest Pennsylvania and tell them, You just don't get it. See, the problem with you people is you're so busy working trying to make ends meet, you don't understand how government works. We can twist it. We can turn it. We can say anything we want. What we ask you is to believe. You know what the American people are telling us? I don't believe you any more. I don't trust you any more. I don't understand why I can be held accountable for everything I do, but other folks that work for me can do pretty much anything they want. Then we'll redeploy them. We'll push them off to another area. They won't lose a penny. We'll bring them back in under some other title, some other agency. All I want to do is give those managers of those agencies the tools that they have requested of us in Congress, give them the ability to hold people accountable. Who am I talking about? I'm talking about the senior executives. I'm not talking about every gal and guy who walks into an office every day that does great work for the American people. Let's not get confused. So, please, don't spin it. My days of riding a merry-go-round are over, and so should yours be. We can fix this. We have to put things in there that make it possible to hold people accountable. The people that raised me, the people that I've worked for, the people that I have played under as coaches, hold you accountable for everything you do, and there are repercussions for doing the wrong thing. You don't give them a pat on the back and say, You know what? Go home for a while. Don't worry about your pay. The American taxpayer is going to pick up the tab on that. We'll keep you safe. We'll keep you covered. Senior executive, this is the creme de la creme, This is the top of the bunch. This isn't all those people you see walking in and out. I don't want to get it confused with the gentleman from Maryland about sequestration. This is about what's fair for this Nation. I'm sick and tired of having everyone else throwing in and saying, No, you don't understand. Let's all put it in a blender, we'll pour it out, and they'll drink it. No, they won't. The American people are choking now on the rhetoric that comes out of this House because we don't talk straight. We talk Washingtonese, which nobody understands. We wouldn't allow it in our public sector, and we shouldn't allow it here. If it's about accountability, listen, I will tell you what, I would like to see accountability not just in the government employee, but also in Members of this great legislature. My goodness, if we don't understand what Madison said and we are truly not ruled by angels, as we know, we are obliged to put in elements that force us--because we won't do the right thing on our own--force us to do the right thing for the American taxpayers and those men and women who get up every day, throw their feet out over the bed, and go to work. Do you know why they do it? Because they love their families and they love their country, and they know they have to do it. Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for allowing this piece of legislation to come forward. I can't tell you how proud I am to be a Member of this body. We may disagree on some things, but people tell me, Kelly, you don't understand. I say, No, no, no. The problem is I do understand; I just don't agree. I understand it so well that if we don't right these wrongs, this great country will never be what it was supposed to be. For us to sit here as a body and allow it to happen and say, Too tough a vote. Man, some people are not going to like me for this. I may not get elected the next time. I just say, Get a stomach, get a stronger back, and do what's right for America. This is about what's right for the true Americans that keep this great organization going. That is the American taxpayer. So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you so much for allowing me to get up and speak, and please, ``If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'' Isn't it amazing that over 225 years ago, the same thing rings true today? If it were really angels that were running the organization, we wouldn't be having these conversations, and we would just go ahead with every day and say it's all right. We're not. We're ruled by men. Men make mistakes. Men need to be held accountable when they make a mistake. I want to make sure that each of us, no matter what party you represent, is able to go to their home district and say, I did what was right for you today. I did what was right for you, your children, and your grandchildren. I did what was right for America.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2711. Let me tell you why. I hear about protecting rights all the time and how important it is for the government to be able to do the things that they need to do. Let me tell you what it's like as a private citizen to be sitting in your office and getting a phone call from somebody that says, I'm sitting here in Detroit, I'm recording this, and I have a lawyer sitting beside me because we're going to put you out of business today. And my response was, Give me a little bit of time. Let me get my lawyer, and let me get a tape recorder and tape what you're saying to me. Now what's right anymore? Boy, have we confused things. Is this a government that works for the people or people that work for the government? My goodness, have we gotten things out of focus here. We think we are so powerful, we are so intelligent. We have reached a level of arrogance that is unbelievable to the American people. Why do they no longer trust us? I can record you but you can't record me. I can have a whole list of everything that you've done, but God help you if you ever try to look into what I'm doing to you. Baloney. It's time for it to stop. If we're really going to restore trust in this government, it's going to take both sides. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue. This is an American issue. My goodness, how can we be so far from what the Founders envisioned when they had absolutely nothing to work for, nothing to work with--nothing but the providence and the hand of God in helping to form a government that is absolutely phenomenal? We're sitting here today and saying it's not okay for a private citizen to record what this government is saying to them. Now the government can do just the opposite. And I don't want to get mixed up with what's legal, because we all know that what's legal has nothing to do with what's right. We've seen that too many times. We've watched it pushed back and forth. And while it may be funny to some, I've got to tell you, it may be funny when you sit here, but I would love you to meet me in the private sector and get a phone call from somebody from the government. It is truly not just chilling; it is freezing. You have got to sit back and listen to these folks, and they're recording every single thing you say. God help you if you stumble or stutter. That's what they're looking for. This gives the private citizens the same rights that they should have. This is a government that's supposed to work for the people and not the people working for the government. It's time to restore trust in this government.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, what truly makes America unique is that everybody is treated fairly and equally under the law. That's what makes us so great. That's why people say, at least if I'm in America, I know I'm going to be treated the same way as everybody else. It's not going to matter what the color of my skin is; it's not going to matter how I worship; it's not going to matter whether I'm wealthy or poor; I'm going to be treated equally and fairly under the law. And yet today, we're talking about something that is going on in our government right now where the President has decided to pick winners and losers. The President has decided that he is going to divide the country even further now because he's not going to do what is fair and what's equal, he's going to do what's convenient. Now, it's pretty easy to understand what fair is. Fair is marked by impartiality and honesty. It's free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism. Equal means of the same measure, quantity, amount, or numbers, as in any other person, any other group, any other class, or any other part of society. So I ask you, How in the world can you say businesses don't have to comply? We're going to go ahead and give them a year off. But yet the individual is going to be held to the letter of the law. If we are truly a country of laws, if we are truly going to treat everybody equally and fairly under the law, then how in the world can we be here today discussing this and debating this on this great floor. It just doesn't make sense. A piece of legislation that continues to unravel before our very eyes, that creates uncertainty in our society, that creates uncertainty in our businesses, and now, we wonder when's the next shoe going to drop? What else is going to be changed? What laws will we enforce, what laws will we walk away from? I would just tell my friends on both sides of the aisle, do what we all believe. Let's treat people fairly and equally under the law. Could there be anything more American than that? And the answer is, no; it's self-evident. So I ask all of us today to do what's right for America. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it's not good for business, why should it be good for individuals? Pass both pieces. Let the American people put their head on the pillow tonight with some kind of surety that they're going to be protected under the law and treated fairly and equally.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I think the whole purpose of this--and Mr. Duffy will have a chance to speak next--this money is collected for a specific reason. I had a conversation with Secretary LaHood talking about why can't we use the money that's been collected and set aside to be used. This is about commerce. This is about fairness. This is about growing our economy and being able to have access to the entire world. We're letting these harbors go unmaintained. We're not dredging them, and we're causing a huge problem in commerce. That's the problem. We can't get from point A to point B. We're lowering the efficiency of our businesses and their ability to get products out there. The whole purpose of this is to use the money that's collected for the intention for which it was collected. It's money that's going in, but not being used the right way, and I don't want to see it get diverted any other way, as we've seen happen already. We're already missing the boat, no pun intended. We're closing down these harbors, and we're not doing the right things by them. I know my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) wants to talk.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, my friend, Mr. Duffy from Wisconsin, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, the reason I'm here tonight is to talk about the efforts that are being used to divert Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund monies to purposes other than what Congress intended, and that is dredging and maintenance of our harbors. I'm talking about fairness, and I'm talking about commerce. We've all known for years that we have a problem when funds are collected for an intended purpose, that sometimes they don't get used that way. So we have money in, but money does not come out for its intended use. There are a number of reasons for this happening. But until we get more funds for their intended purpose, Mr. Duffy and I oppose expanding the authorities for the use of this funding. This is a matter of fairness. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has carried a surplus since 1997. At the end of fiscal year 2012, the trust fund had an estimated $7 billion surplus that was not spent on harbor maintenance. Yet our harbors are under-maintained. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that full channel dimensions at the Nation's busiest 59 ports are available less than 35 percent of the time. That's unacceptable. Just from an economic standpoint, it should be unacceptable to us. Ships, especially those in my district and throughout the Great Lakes, are light-loading. When that happens, American productivity is lost. Light-loading--we can't even load the ship to their capacity because we haven't maintained our harbors. We haven't dredged our harbors. This is an affront to commerce. It goes back to the very beginning of what the Founding Fathers thought about commerce as so important, getting products from point A to point B. We must ensure that the moneys intended for dredging are not siphoned off for other reasons. Our amendment will prohibit moneys from being used by the administration to expand the authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund moneys. I know this is something that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) has supported in the past, and I appreciate his consideration. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, part of the district that I represent is Lake Erie. I also have the Ohio River Watershed. My amendment would have allowed the Army Corps to combat the Asian carp in the Ohio River. There are over 30 States affected by Asian carp, and this invasive fish is already throughout the Midwest. This is about protecting our regional economy, the fishing industry, and the livelihoods of all of us who rely on the water for our jobs. This invasive species significantly alters the habitat. It crowds out native fish, and it is also a threat to boaters. I've worked very closely with Senator Toomey, with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, as well as with legislators who represent that potentially affected area, to both study and develop plans of action to deal with this invasive species. This is what we understand: Under just one measure, the Great Lakes fisheries generate U.S. economic activity of approximately $7 billion annually, and our native fish populations, like walleye, perch, and lake herring, would be devastated by the Asian carp establishment, threatening this industry and the livelihoods of all of those who depend on this ecosystem's health. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to bring this forward, and I hope, in the future, we can take a look at it. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I want to thank you very much for your comments. The gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) is also very aware of this. I think all of us who represent the Great Lakes area understand the danger that this fish is bringing into our Great Lakes and into the fishing industry. It is unbelievable the amount of damage that's being done, not only to the fishing industry, but also to boaters. For anybody who has seen film, this is a fish that actually comes out of the water and goes after boaters. It gets very easily aggravated. Now, you don't have to have a motor on the boat--you can be paddling the boat--and this fish will come out of the water and hit people. I have seven grandchildren whom I take out with me from time to time. The oldest one is 8 years old. These are small people. This fish is 70 pounds when it reaches its full maturity. It is a voracious eater. It is going to totally take over the Great Lakes, and it will ruin our fishing industry. So I can't tell you how much I appreciate your comments and your concern. Also, I know this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. This is an American issue that has to be looked into, and I thank you very much for your comments.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Will the gentlelady yield?