Tom Marino

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I am going to hit on two areas here for a moment and ask the American people to get more involved, to call your Representatives, to call your Senators, demand from them that we get legislation passed through both Houses, or at least the legislation is brought to the floor for a vote. The American people deserve that. As I said earlier, I am a states' rights guy, a constitutionalist, worked in a factory, worked in industry, and then put myself through college and law school. My father, as I said, gave me a good life. My father was a firefighter, a janitor, a painter, and whatever else he could do to raise money to keep a roof over our heads and to feed us. He always said, if you are going to say something, first of all, to someone, that you look right in their eye and you speak the truth. You don't make it personal, and you base what you say on facts and you support those facts. I am a true believer that Americans, over the last decade or two, even more so today, have been asked to do more with less. Their budgets are tight. Some are laid off. Some are completely out of jobs. They are working one and two and three part-time jobs. But we have the technology out there to create better jobs. Also, the American people should demand that government operates the same way. I am a believer that the Federal Government is much too large. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. It needs to be downsized by at least a third. From those of us still here, the taxpayers should demand that we do more--do more with less--just like industry does, just like we do at home. The government should operate under that basis. I am now going to switch back to ObamaCare for a moment. In an article of 2-24-2014 in Forbes magazine, it reads: ``ObamaCare Will Cost 2.9 million or More Jobs a Year.'' I have more health care people--physicians, hospitals, constituents--constantly calling me, saying, What am I going to do? I can't get insurance or I cannot afford this insurance. We, the Republicans, have put a proposal together, and we would like to see that voted on. We would like to see that get over to the Senate. I also want to bring something else to your attention concerning ObamaCare, and it is concerning our young people, the future of this country. I have met so many bright young people who are out of college but who cannot get a job. They are very talented. They are smart individuals. There was a feature issue put out by Sea Change, and it was a poll. It reads: ``Policy Feature Issue: ObamaCare and Youth--Why Millennials are Right to be Concerned.'' These are young people, particularly those out of college who can't find work. It reads: A recent poll of millennials, released by Harvard's Institute of Politics, found that, today, ``only 41 percent of millennials approve of the President's performance, down 11 points since Harvard's last survey in April.'' I am going to go further on to read: With respect to ObamaCare, young Americans are even more suspicious. More than half of the poll's responders believe that health care costs will increase under ObamaCare, with 44 percent indicating that they believe the quality of care will decline. Moreover, almost two-thirds of the respondents say they do not plan to enroll in ObamaCare, which, if accurate, would be extremely problematic for the future viability of the Federal exchanges. The White House just released that now they have--I heard it on the floor today--almost 7 million. It was 7 million, and then it was over 7 million. Again, the White House has not been consistent with its numbers, and it hasn't, I believe, given all of the information. I read an article here in which it says they are touting that 6 million, 7 million--whatever figure they have come up with--got on the Web site and signed up. There is a big difference there, folks, because, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between signing up and paying. This article stated that most of those individuals who signed up did not pay and that they project that those individuals will not pay. That is what this ObamaCare health care plan was relying on, for young people who are in good health today to pay. Yet they are saying, I am in good health. Why should I bail others out? Now, let me make this perfectly clear. I believe that everyone should have health care. My daughter has cystic fibrosis, a disease for which there is no cure. The hoops that my wife and I had to jump through and still are jumping through in order to cover my daughter are extraordinary. If there are people out there who cannot afford health care, we, as Americans, have to help them. We have to pay for them. We have to give them health care. That is what America is about. That is what Americans do. We help people. We try to improve the quality of life. I am asking, Mr. Speaker, that the American people get more involved in the political system, to be aware of what is out there, to hear what is going on. You heard what I stated and what I cited. Check my facts. Follow up. Just don't take what you hear as actual fact and actual truth. Back it up. Ask your elected officials, Where did you get that information? On what did you base it? It is about time, as my colleague Congressman Kelly said, that we level the playing field, that we take the handcuffs and the restraints off of hardworking taxpayers so they can give their children and their grandchildren a better way of life. I know that we can do that in this country. We are the greatest country in the world. I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I am a member of the NATO alliance. I talk to people who represent 27 other countries about how great America is and about how they look to us and what we can do. Even the countries that do not like us look to America for leadership. They look to America for a better way of life, not only here in the U.S. but around the world. I have to tell you that every time I drive from Williamsport, Pennsylvania--the 10th Congressional District there--after a week of listening to my constituents and seeing what they go through--my farmers, businesspeople, homemakers, single moms, men who can't find jobs, women who have to work two and three part-time jobs to raise their families--I know we have a responsibility. As I turn on to Independence and as I see the dome of this beautiful building, I can't believe that I am fortunate enough to be here, to represent not only my 10th Congressional District in Pennsylvania but all of America, but it is a responsibility that I chose. It is a responsibility for which I have to continue to fight every day of my life. I heard one of my colleagues say--and I am going to borrow his line, and I am going to ad-lib it a little bit. He would say to his people as he was speaking to them in a group--and he would stand up and take his glasses off--do you see this line here, this wrinkle here? This was caused by fighting to keep your taxes low. Do you see this wrinkle here? This was caused by making sure that the American people know what we are voting on. This line here was caused to make sure that there is a level playing field, and there is still room on my face for more lines and more wrinkles to keep fighting. That is what I am going to do--that is what we all should be doing here in the House--to keep fighting for the American people. Down the road, I want someone to say to my children, Do you know something? When your father was a Member of Congress, he did the right thing for the American people and for his constituents.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Madam Speaker, earlier this week, our friends on the other side of the Capitol, the Democrats, burned the midnight oil in a strange effort to call attention to global warming. Unfortunately, for some of our friends in the Senate, hot air from the Chamber will not bring down the temperature in our atmosphere. Instead of stoking the rhetorical flames through hours of meaningless grandstanding, I hope the Democrat Senate will use some of its time to hotline the critical job-creating bills that have been put on ice on Harry Reid's desk. Madam Speaker, our constituents don't want to be left out in the cold. We need action today on bills to create jobs. Madam Speaker, I hope Members of this body will join me and hold the Democrat Senate's feet to the fire by calling on them to pass bills that will refire America's economic engine.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the President has shown a complete disregard for the rule of law. Rather than upholding and enforcing the laws as written by Congress, President Obama has decided to rewrite them however it pleases him. The United States Constitution, to which every President swears an oath, commands that the President: shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. As a former U.S. Attorney, I took an oath to execute fully my duties. I took this oath very seriously, and that meant following the rule of law, even though I disagreed with it. It is time to hold the President accountable for violating his oath of office and restore balance between the three branches of government. I would like to remind my colleagues that there is an old saying: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just recently, the President was caught on an open mike saying: I'm the President; I can do what I want. My colleagues, I ask you to join me in supporting H.R. 4138, introduced by my esteemed colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Representative Trey Gowdy.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the American historical record has always been ``the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery.'' However, although the National Bureau of Economic Research states the recession ended 5 years ago, we can agree the recovery has been anything but strong. Facts are something this administration fights with vehement opposition. Nevertheless, the simple fact is this is the slowest ``recovery'' our country has witnessed since the Truman Presidency. After the deep recession that began in December of 2007, employment has risen sluggishly, at best, and has risen much more slowly than in the last four recoveries, for certain. According to the CBO, employment at the end of 2013 was about 6 million jobs short of where it would be if the unemployment rate had returned to its pre-recession level. This is why I have introduced H.R. 2641, the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013, also known as the RAPID Act. The RAPID Act creates a streamlined Federal environmental review and permitting process that establishes transparency and certainty for job creators. Furthermore, this bill would empower lead agencies to manage environmental reviews from start to finish, as well as establish time constraints on the review process and period in which a claim can be filed. A recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce identified 351 State- level projects that, if approved for construction, could have created 1.9 million jobs annually during the projected 7 years of construction. While these numbers help put the issue in perspective, I don't need to see a study to know that bureaucracy is holding up projects and preventing job growth. I see it every day in my district. For example, one of my constituents, PPL Corporation, filed an application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate a state-of-the-art nuclear plant near the company's existing two-unit Susquehanna nuclear power plant. The plant would produce 1,600 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 1 million homes. PPL predicted this one project would create 400 construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs. In addition, early estimates by PPL were that the project would cost $15 billion to construct. These estimates include escalation, financing costs, initial nuclear fuel, and contingencies and reserves. Imagine for a moment, if you will, the positive impact of a $15 billion investment in my district in Pennsylvania, the 10th Congressional District. However, Washington bureaucrats have prevented this project from creating jobs, and it has yet to break ground. Six years after the application was first filed in 2008, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission claims they are still reviewing the company's request for a combined operating license. If these individuals that are reviewing this after 6 years were working in private industry, they would have been fired in the first year. In fact, PPL says, realistically, a final decision on the project is still several years away. This is ridiculous. Let me be clear. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 serves worthy goals, which should be preserved. I live out in the country. I get my water from a well. I love to see the deer and the bear come through my land. I raised my children there. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that I would do anything to hurt my children, whether it is water, air, or the environment in general, they really should think again. Federal agencies should be able to evaluate new projects to ensure that they don't pose a threat to the environment or to the public. However, over time, NEPA regulations have turned into an outdated, burdensome, and convoluted Federal permitting process that must be reined in. The good news is that a bipartisan consensus exists on the need to reform the permitting process. In fact, the administration, the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and legislation adopted by a strong bipartisan majority in the 109th and 112th Congresses all recognize that an overly burdensome and lengthy environmental review and permitting process undermines economic growth. The time for these reforms is now, because Americans are ready to get back to work. The RAPID Act of 2013 will remove the red tape and allow job creators to take projects off the drawing board and onto the worksite. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense reform, and I reserve the balance of my time. March 5, 2014. To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The undersigned groups strongly support H.R. 2641, the ``Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act of 2013,'' which would provide a streamlined process for developers, builders, and designers to obtain environmental permits and approvals for their projects in a timely and efficient manner, allowing jobs to be created and the economy to grow. Every year that major projects are stalled or cancelled because of a dysfunctional permitting process and a system that allows limitless challenges by opponents of development, millions of jobs are not created. For example, 351 stalled energy projects reviewed in one 2010 study (Project No Project) had a total economic value of over $1 trillion and represented 1.9 American jobs not created. Project No Project showed that in the energy sector alone, one year of delay translates into millions of jobs not created. The Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013 would improve the environmental review and permitting process by: Coordinating responsibilities among multiple agencies involved in environmental reviews to ensure that ``the trains run on time;'' Providing for concurrent reviews by agencies, rather than serial reviews; Allowing state-level environmental reviews to be used where the state has done a competent job, thereby avoiding needless duplication of state work by federal reviewers; Requiring that agencies involve themselves in the process early and comment early, avoiding eleventh-hour objections that can restart the entire review timetable; Establishing a reasonable process for determining the scope of project alternatives, so that the environmental review does not devolve into an endless quest to evaluate infeasible alternatives; Consolidating the process into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and single Environmental Assessment (EA) for a project, except as otherwise provided by law; Imposing reasonable fixed deadlines for completion of an EIS or EA; and Reducing the statute of limitations to challenge a final EIS or EA from six years to 180 days. The RAPID Act is a practical, industry-wide approach that builds on successful provisions for environmental review management found in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and Section 1609 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The RAPID Act also embodies the procedural improvements to ``cut red tape'' as called for by the Obama administration, including, most recently, in his January 28, 2014, State of the Union Address. The RAPID Act addresses the problem far too many shovel- ready projects face today: lengthy project delays from endless environmental reviews and challenges result in lost opportunities to create jobs and grow the economy. Every year of delay results in millions of jobs not created. The creation of millions of jobs is worth ensuring that our governinent works faster and more efficiently. The undersigned groups strongly support H.R. 2641. The RAPID Act would be the strong action needed to speed up the permitting process and let important projects move forward, allowing millions of workers to get back to work. We urge you to support this important bill. Sincerely, American Architectural Manufacturers Association, American Bakers Association, American Chemistry Council, American Coating Association, American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, American Council of Engineering Companies, American Forest & Paper Association, American Foundry Society, American Highway Users Alliance, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Rental Association, American Road & Transportation Builders Association. American Supply Association, Associated Builders & Contractors, Associated Builders & Contractors--Rhode Island Chapter, Associated Equipment Distributors, Associated General Contractors, Associated Wire Rope Fabricators, Association of American Railroads, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Construction Industry Round Table, Edison Electric Institute, Electronic Security Association, Forging Industry Association, Foundry Association of Michigan, Independent Electrical Contractors, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, Industrial Fasteners Institute, Industrial Minerals Association--North America, Metals Service Center Institute. Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, National Association of Electrical Distributors, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, National Federation of Independent Business, National Industrial Sand Association, National Mining Association, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, National Shippers Strategic Transportation Council. National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, Non-Ferrous Founders' Society, North American Equipment Dealers Association, Nuclear Energy Institute, Ohio Cast Metals Association, Pacific-West Fastener Association, Pennsylvania Foundry Association, Petroleum Marketers Association of America, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, South Carolina Timber Producers Association, Texas Cast Metals Association, Textile Rental Services Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington Retail Association, Wisconsin Cast Metals Association, Wisconsin Grocers Association.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. It is almost amusing to hear my colleagues from the other side say how much they want to work together, how much they want to get this country moving, how much they want to create jobs. Since I have been here--this is my second term, fourth year--I have seen virtually no cooperation from the other side in creating jobs. They get up, and they give a good speech about names, but there is no substance to it. There is no substance to it at all. As a matter of fact, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. Both sides support this. You know, my colleagues had control of the House prior to the Republicans controlling it 4 years ago. They touched none of these issues. And I want to ask the American people--not my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--how has this Federal regulation system been going over the last 5 years? Virtually no jobs created, agencies stopping everything they can under this administration, but yet they stand up and give a good speech about cooperation. I have rarely seen it here. I have seen obstructionists because it is a power play. You know, when someone comes up with a good idea--and I blame both sides over the years for this--it is not what is in the best interests of the American people. It is who is in power that wants to keep it and who is not in power that wants to take it away. And you know something? The American people are completely forgotten about. Well, one of the reasons--the main reason I came to Washington was to work for the American people, not to preserve my job, not to keep power, not to take power; but it was to do what is right. And if you would listen to what has taken place in some of the hearings over the past 3.5 years that I have been involved in, you don't hear cooperation. You don't hear it at all. So now, I ask my colleagues on the other side: How is that Federal system going? How is that permitting system going--that regulating system going? It is not going well at all. Just ask industry how much it has been slowed down because of regulation, and thousands and thousands of more regulations have been implemented by this administration than ever before. So let's get serious, okay? Let's be honest with the American people about what this is about. The Federal government doesn't create jobs. Private sector creates jobs. The responsibility of the Federal Government is to remove obstacles that allow private industry to do what they do best--better than the Federal Government. And as I said before, I have met a lot of good people here in Congress. I have met a lot of good people in the Federal system. But there is a fair number of people in the Federal system, in these agencies, that go out and say ``no,'' just for the sake of saying ``no,'' that if they had to go to work in private industry and operated under the same premise that they did in the Federal Government, they would be fired. It is about time we start standing up for the American people and create jobs; and I hear from this administration constantly, but there are always obstacles. There are 40-some pieces of legislation sitting on Harry Reid's desk, the leader of the Senate, the Democrat who won't even bring it to the floor for a vote. That is a disgrace. Bring it to the floor for a vote. Vote it up or down, but let the American people know what is being voted on; and it should be brought to the floor, so they know what is going on here. With that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. I yield myself the remainder of the time, Mr. Chairman. You know, Mr. Chairman, to bring about real and durable job recovery, there can be only one conclusion about what the House can do today, and it should vote to pass the RAPID Act. My friend on the other side talks about the post office, and I support them. My mother worked for the post office. But you know something? The post office is self-funded, okay? Where is the $1 trillion that this administration put into the so- called stimulus? It did nothing. It wasn't applied properly. It wasn't utilized. This doesn't cut regulations, this legislation. It doesn't cut regulations. It cuts making a decision from 15 years down to 4.5 years. Just think in our households, how many of us would have delayed by years making decisions, were it be. This is bipartisan legislation that would transform into immediate action the recommendations of the President's Jobs Council, the exhortations of Vice President Biden, and the promises President Obama made. The President's Jobs Council stated that our system for permitting and approving job-creating projects leads to delays and litigation and recommended in 2011 that the process be streamlined. The RAPID Act does that. President Obama, in his 2014 State of the Union Address, promised action to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. The RAPID Act delivers that. Let's come together, Republicans and Democrats, for the hardworking Americans desperate for new and high-paying jobs. The RAPID Act allows that to happen. On average, it takes the Federal Government 10 to 15 years to approve permitting. If private industry operated in such an irresponsible manner, it would be bankrupt. Instead of talking the talk, it is time to walk the walk and pass this legislation that will create excellent-paying jobs. My legislation reduces permitting down to 4.5 years, and it doesn't take any authority away. It appoints a single entity, a Federal agency that has a major hand in this for oversight. And if my colleagues are saying: well, it is not the Federal Government, it is the State and local governments. Then that agency can light the fire under that local or State government and tell them: you must get your approvals in or, by a certain time, your opportunity to do that will be waived. So still, in an effort to reach across the aisle and work with my colleagues and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, let's cut the red tape. Ask the people in my district about red tape--those from the VA, those from Social Security--what they have to go through with agencies--those from EPA, those from OSHA. It is a disaster. So let's come together, Republicans and Democrats, for the hardworking Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, with all due respect to my colleague with whom we have worked closely on several matters on several committees, Mr. Chairman, the American people desperately need new jobs. Just this week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that America's labor force participation rate is at a 35-year low. Over 92 million Americans who could work are outside of the workforce. That is more than the population of all but 14 of the world's 228 countries--and more than every country in the Western Hemisphere but Brazil and Mexico. We face this historically low rate not because Americans don't want to work, but because so many Americans have despaired of any hope of finding a new full-time job and have abandoned the workforce. The RAPID Act offers strong help to reverse this tragedy, restore hope, and produce millions of new jobs. We must pass the bill, not weaken it, to provide these new, high-wage jobs. But the gentlelady's amendment would weaken the bill in one of the worst possible ways. It would remove the clear consequence in the bill for agencies that refuse to follow the bill's deadlines. That consequence is to deem permits approved if agencies refuse to approve or deny them within those deadlines. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides 4\1/2\ years for agencies to complete their environmental reviews for new permit applications and reasonable additional time for agencies to wrap up final permit approvals or denials after that. 4\1/2\ years is more time than it took the United States to fight and win World War II. If agencies can't wrap up their environmental reviews in that much time and then meet the bill's remaining deadlines, there is something terribly wrong with the agencies. The prospect of facing a default approval at the end of the substantial time the bill grants is an eminently responsible, reasonable way to assure that agencies will conduct full reviews and wrap their work up in time to make up-or-down decisions on their own. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and, reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to close on this thought here. My colleague on the other side says that 4\1/2\ years is just simply not enough time to go through the permitting and licensing project. Just think about this: ask the people in the private sector when you see buildings going up, before they are going up when there is a statement on the land where the building is going to go up as to this project is going to take place in so much time, ask those people, get information to see how long it takes the private sector to do the same thing that the Federal Government is supposed to be doing. At most, a couple of years--not 10 years, not 12 years, not 15 years. Private industry can have this done in a couple of years with all the research, with all the permitting, with all the licensing, and with all the hearings. I think one of my colleagues said this blocks out the public from hearing or making any statements. That is simply not true. That is absolutely not true. The public still has the time and can do that. So with that, I oppose my good friend's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, just to highlight some construction that has taken place in the past before we had all this regulation: San Francisco Bay Bridge construction started July 9, 1933, and the bridge opened up on November 12, 1936. Chesapeake Bay Bridge construction started in January of 1949 and the bridge opened up July 30, 1952. Empire State Building construction started January 22, 1930, and the building opened up May 1, 1931. The Chrysler Building construction began in 1926 and was completed in 1930. One of my favorites: the new Yankee Stadium groundbreaking was in August of 2006; opening day was April of 2009. There are thousands of comedians out of business. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would get serious about following the premise that the American people want--less red tape--instead of trying to be funny, we would be in good shape.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. MARINO. ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered,'' words of Representative Daniel Webster, right up there. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit isn't about improving legislation. It is about imposing roadblocks, erecting hurdles, pointing to excuses to keep us from doing what we were sent here to do, which is to set the wheels of progress turning to lift the American people out of crisis and economic calamity, to lift the American people into prosperity and high-paying jobs. People have hungered for months and years for good, new high-paying jobs. Americans want to know that Washington hears them, Washington cares about them, and Washington knows how to get the red tape out of the way so they can get back to work. The families that depend every day on their breadwinners, finding some way to make ends meet, want to know that we can deliver on the job we were sent here to do. For 3 years, the President's Jobs Council recommended that we streamline the Federal permitting process. Vice President Biden's urgent words have been echoing: It's time we get moving. Folks, this isn't a partisan issue. It's an economic issue. Less than 2 months ago, President Obama stood in the House and promised action to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this legislation does this. The RAPID Act is exactly what our private and public sector leaders have called for. It is what millions of American workers yearning for new work and hoping for higher wages need. But what do we have before us now with this motion to recommit? It is the exact mirror image of everything that is wrong with the Federal permitting process and keeps jobs from the American people. We have a trumped up argument, a procedural device, a tried and true tactic of delay--an excuse for Members of Congress to duck a vote and not make a needed decision that will bring millions of good, high- paying jobs to the American people. It is time that the bureaucrats in D.C. and it is time that we, elected officials, clearly understand that we work for the American people and that the American people are the government of the United States. It is time for we, the Members of the House and the Senate, to take the handcuffs off private industry, the job creators, and remove the boot of delay and procrastination from the throat of prosperity. Vote against this motion, and vote for the RAPID Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to an issue that affects millions of American citizens. A rare disease is defined as a disease that affects fewer than 200,000 people. There are over 7,000 rare diseases that affect close to 30 million people. My family knows the difficulties of dealing with a rare disease. My daughter, Chloe, has suffered from cystic fibrosis her entire life. CF is a life-threatening rare disease that causes mucus to build up and block major organs. Chloe is one of only 30,000 people affected by this disease in the United States. As a rare disease, CF requires specialized care that can cost an individual hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime. Even though there have been advancements in medicine, a CF sufferer may only survive into their thirties. This is much different than it was 50 years ago, where a child was lucky to live to the age of 10. Today we observe CF and all other rare diseases to stress the importance of funding for rare disease research. Hopefully, we can make rare diseases a thing of the past.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Anthony Herzog, a member of my staff for the past two years who will be retiring from his position as a District Representative in my Hamlin Constituent Service Center. Tony, what most know him by, started in my office on June 2nd, 2012 and I was eager to put his knowledge and experience to use by helping me serve the people of Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District. Tony has an extensive public service record including having served as Wayne County Commissioner for 24 years. As commissioner, he was instrumental in numerous projects in Wayne County including, construction of the Wayne County Operations Center, the Wayne County Correctional Facility, and also the Recycling Center. Tony also served as director for the Wayne County Chamber of Commerce and worked to acquire the BL-2 No. 54 Locomotive, a showpiece in Honesdale, while also establishing the Stourbridge Line Rail Excursions. Tony has also been active in numerous organizations and has held leadership positions in most of them, including: the Honesdale Lions Club, Boy Scouts Troop 1 100th Anniversary, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, Wayne County Family Center Board, NEPA Alliance, Wayne County Area Agency on Aging, Wayne County Drug and Alcohol Commission, Wayne County Conservation District and in 1998, Tony was appointed by the Governor to the PennDOT Transportation Advisory Committee. He also served as President of Herzog Trucking Company in Honesdale for 33 years. Tony's influence can also be found in area sports as he is a strong supporter of both recreational and organized sports in Wayne County. He has been a player, coach, umpire and sponsor as his company, Herzog Trucking Company, sponsored numerous teams throughout the area. He was a member of the volunteer group that built Honesdale High School's first ever football field and bleachers in the 1970's and he assisted in the improvement of the County Sports Complex in Beach Lake, Pennsylvania. Tony currently resides in Cherry Ridge Township with his wife, Sharon. They have two children: Andrea and Steven and three grand- children: Emma and Brady Herzog and Heather O'Hara. Words cannot express how thankful I am to have had Tony as a member of my staff and how sad I am going to be to see him go. He has left a lasting impression and he will be truly missed by me, members of my staff, and the people of Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 32, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 32 due to inclement weather which prevented me from traveling from Williamsport, PA to Washington, DC. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 33, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 33 due to inclement weather, which prevented me from traveling from Williamsport, PA to Washington, DC. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue to bring attention to an issue that is devastating the people of Pennsylvania--across the 10th District and other districts in Pennsylvania--and across this country. It is the implementation of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. It has unintentionally burdened lower- and middle class homeowners and small businesses. Rates have increased astronomically. Biggert- Waters had the best of intentions. However, FEMA's methodology is severely flawed, and FEMA failed to warn Congress. This afternoon, I am joined by a bipartisan group of my colleagues from across the country; and while the details of a proposed solution may vary, I believe we are unified behind the goal of protecting the livelihoods and investments of hardworking Americans. Our homes are often our most valuable assets in that they allow us to retire; they allow us to send our children to college; they allow us to leave something behind for our children and our grandchildren for a better life. These homes form the backbone of riverside and coastal working-class communities. The downfall of these residential real estate markets will be catastrophic. Homeowners will lose their total investments in their properties. Small businesses will lose their customers, not to mention their real estate. Small banks will go out of business because people are not able to pay the insurance that the mortgages call for. The communities left behind will no longer have an adequate tax base to fund basic services. I believe the best solution right now is to repeal Biggert-Waters in its entirety and to start again from square one. Authors of the law on the House Financial Services Committee intended to stabilize the National Flood Insurance Program, but this law has disproportionately affected low- and middle class homeowners who cannot afford these premiums. Although we here in Congress tend to think in abstract terms, I want to share some of the stories I have heard from my neighbors back home in the 10th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Jeff and Erica Waldman purchased a house in Muncy, Pennsylvania. Their flood insurance premium was initially $900 per year. Now they are being told to pay by the end of last year--the 31st, a few days ago-- $9,000 a year for flood insurance--up front. Jeff and Erica are frustrated about the lack of information they were given and are days away from losing their home as we speak. We cannot solely place this burden on people like Jeff and Erica. Laurie and Michael Portanova purchased three historic properties in Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, last year, hoping that their new business would rejuvenate the Main Street feel for the borough. Their flood insurance premium per year was $2,800. They received a notice that they had to pay $40,000 by the end of the year for flood insurance, by the end of 2013. They are close to walking away from their investments and taking a huge loss. This would also have devastating consequences on other property owners in Jersey Shore, who will have an additional tax burden if homeowners in the area are not able to keep their homes because they are not able to pay the flood insurance. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Thompson.

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman Thompson. I would like to add a true story happening right now in my district due to these increases in rates. Nikki Burrows met her husband, bought their home in Muncy in 2006. Insurance premiums more than doubled from $862 to $1,750; but because the Burrows had suffered flood damage from Tropical Storm Lee in 2011, they are subject to an additional 20 percent on their premiums until they max out. Add an annual fee of $4,000 annually. So, in essence, they went from $862 a year to $4,000 a year because they were hit in one of the floods. These Burrows are trapped. These townships and small towns along the rivers are trapped into a situation where the average mean income is about $37,000. That's before taxes. That's before mortgage payment. That's before food for the kids. That's before other insurances. Yet these people are to come up with $4,000, $6,000, $8,000 and $10,000 up front, per year, for flood insurance because of the unintended consequences of Biggert-Waters. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Keating, my colleague across the aisle and a former prosecutor.

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman Keating. I would like to reiterate the devastating effects that these premiums are having on the values of homes, affecting retirement plans, retirement plans for a lot of our seniors in the district. Tom Rishel, Tom is out of a pension. He does not have a retirement plan, so he invested in several properties in Muncy, Pennsylvania, hoping to one day resell the properties. His premium, on just one property, has jumped from $600 a year to over $9,500 a year. Tom, who is 70 years old, fears his properties are worthless and his dreams of retirement have been destroyed. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi, Congressman Palazzo.

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman Palazzo. Your map says it all. After speaking with many constituents during the recess, including five town halls that I held, I believe that many homeowners who have seen their rates increase were not even aware that the National Flood Insurance Program rates were partially subsidized by the Federal Government. As the Congressman just said, please do not think that this pertains to California coast and the Pacific alone, or New Jersey or New York coastal. This affects people all across the United States. Just in the State of Pennsylvania alone, we are not on a coast, we are in by several hundred miles, there are several thousand miles of waterways, rivers, creeks, streams. Just to give you an example, in one of the town meetings, I asked Jeff and his wife--Jeff is from Muncie. Jeff and his wife bought a house, paid it off early, paid their taxes, kept their insurance up. Again, their insurance is going up from about $600 a year to $11,000 a year. I said to Jeff, when you were at your closing, and the realtor is sitting with you, and the lawyer is sitting with you, and the bank is sitting with you, they came out to you and said, okay, now we need a check for the flood insurance because you have a federally-backed loan and you are in a flood area. So he wrote out a check for 6 or 700 bucks. But I said, at that point, did anyone say to you that two-thirds of the cost of the flood insurance is subsidized by the Federal Government? He said, never. I said, did anyone say to you that that subsidy could go away some day? Never. Did anyone tell you that the rates were going up because of that subsidy? Never. So it is not fair to the American people who are not told ahead of time--this is before recent closings--and they have the rug pulled out from under them. So we are saying, in essence--and again, this is an unintended consequence of Biggert-Waters--FEMA did not give us the right information. I believe they held information back. We are saying to the American people who are on $35,000 a year or $40,000 a year annual income, who have to pay $10,000 up front, you know something? We had a subsidy for you yesterday, but guess what? It is not there today, and it is too bad that you may lose your house. We cannot let that happen. Now, it gives me great pleasure to yield to the gentleman from New York, Congressman Grimm.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?