Tom Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. 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).

Mr. REED. Seventy thousand.

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

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. 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?

Mr. REED. 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?

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. We are coming to our end of time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, the recent launch of a three-stage rocket by North Korea was a clear provocation that cannot be ignored. Although the launch was a technical failure, it was an aggressive statement that shows the new regime in North Korea intends to continue down the dangerous path of saber rattling to intimidate other nations, particularly South Korea. For years now, the United States, South Korea, and other countries have been trying to engage the North Korean regime diplomatically to end its program to develop nuclear weapons and the delivery devices that could threaten Northeast Asia and the Western Pacific. Despite offering many positive incentives in the form of humanitarian aid, the Stalinist government of North Korea has persisted in its belligerence and has stubbornly refused to adhere to peaceful international protocols that engender stability and economic prosperity. By contrast, South Korea is one of the world's most economically successful countries. Many of us have seen that dramatic satellite image of the Korean peninsula at night, which shows South Korea lit brightly while North Korea is in near total darkness. This image serves as a metaphor for the freedom and enlightenment that governs South Korea and the enslavement and barbarism in North Korea. Indeed, were it not for its dalliance with advanced technologies in rockets and nuclear bombs, North Korea could truly be said to be living in the Dark Ages. My father served in the Korean War. He fought side by side with South Korean soldiers who were struggling to save their homeland from the onslaught of communism. For 60 years, the two Koreas have lived under a fragile armistice that masks a tinderbox threatened by a match held by the Kim family dynasty. I visited South Korea just last year. I saw economic prosperity and political liberty that never could have been imagined when my father was there in the 1950's. South Korea is one of the largest trading partners of the United States. The recently-implemented U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement will open up many more opportunities for American businesses to engage our Korean partners. In the 29th congressional district of New York, which I am privileged to represent, farmers, small business owners, and larger firms are already benefiting from the Free Trade Agreement's Launch of North Korean Missile effects. That doesn't even take into account the substantial benefits to consumers who are able to buy high-quality products at lower prices. Political stability and the security of the Korean Peninsula are vital to U.S. interests and to our allies. Beyond South Korea, nations such as Japan and the Philippines could be threatened by the existence of North Korean nuclear missiles. Further North Korean provocations could easily and seriously disrupt the trans-Pacific trade relations that have developed over the past six decades. It is the obligation of Congress to speak out when U.S. security and our economic interests are under threat. Even though North Korea's ill- considered missile experiment failed last week, that does not mean that the next launch will fail. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning the Pyongyang regime's belligerent behavior as a threat to regional and global security.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. At this point in time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. REED. 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. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. REED. I thank my colleague from Florida.

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED. 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.