Tom Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman for his comments so much because the Independent Payment Advisory Board is a classic example of what is wrong with ObamaCare. What they did in ObamaCare in the last congressional session was delegate its authority to 15 unelected bureaucrats. You're absolutely right. And the worst thing about it, to my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, is that 15-member board is not subject to any open law requirements. They don't have to conduct their hearings in public. They don't have to conduct their deliberations with public input. It's 15 unelected bureaucrats that are making fundamental health care decisions that should be patient-centered relationships between a patient and a doctor. But yet, under ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act, what this Congress did in the 111th Congress was delegate its authority to 15 bureaucrats to make those life-and-death decisions.

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining us this evening. On the point about small businesses, I would refer to a McKenzie Group report that found that more than one-half of employers with high awareness of the impact of ObamaCare said in the poll and in that report that they will stop offering health coverage when this becomes fully implemented as a result of their concern as to the bureaucratic pressure and the cost that this law is going to put on small business America. To me, that's unacceptable. I know it is unacceptable to my colleague from Georgia, and I so appreciate you entertaining some time with us tonight. With that, I would like to yield to my good friend from South Carolina, a great member of the freshman class, Mr. Jeff Duncan.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight and am joined down here by many of my colleagues as freshman Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to have an open and honest conversation with you, Mr. Speaker, and with all of America to talk about an issue that I believe is timely, with the court case that is now pending in the United States Supreme Court dealing with the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ``ObamaCare,'' otherwise known as many other items, but tonight we'll be referring to it as ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that ObamaCare is a legislative act that overpromises, overspends, and underperforms, all at the expense of hardworking taxpayers. The law does little to get to the root cause of the problem in health care, and that is escalating cost increases across America. To me, the law is more focused on health insurance reform and does not do much in regards to curving the increasing health care costs in America down. Now, in the House of Representatives, we have voted repeatedly to repeal this atrocious law. I believe that is the best course of action for many reasons, and I'm sure we're going to get into those reasons tonight. But tonight we are joined by many freshman colleagues. What I'd like to do at this point in time is yield to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Scott), a great Member of the freshman class and president of the freshman class, to offer some comments in regards to the same.

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

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nazareth College, which I am proud to represent as part of the 29th District of the great state of New York. Nazareth College was recently recognized by the Military Advanced Education Journal as military friendly, following a concerted effort to help veteran students transition to academia. Beginning with the hiring of Jeremy Bagley as coordinator of veteran student enrollment, Nazareth College has worked to provide more services and offerings to its veteran students. By working with the Rochester Veterans Outreach Center, Nazareth College has provided access to creative arts therapy and therapists and developed a program to train faculty and staff to help respond to veterans' needs. When the Veterans Outreach Center was forced to lay off employees due to financial pressures, Nazareth College provided oversight of its on-site clinical staff to help offset the impact of cuts to vital programs. Nazareth College continues to offer internships pairing veterans with veteran mentors as part of a broad strategy to help veteran students better handle the transition from military service to academia. In recognition of this concerted effort by Nazareth College and in light of the rigorous criteria used by the Military Advanced Education Journal in awarding this distinction, I am pleased to recognize Nazareth College for their designation as military friendly.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in what appears to be a bipartisan sentiment that's developing on the floor of the House today, and I'm pleased to be part of it. I'm pleased to stand with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and members of the Ways and Means Committee in support of a bill that will go a long way to protecting American job creators and American employees from coast to coast. What we are talking about is allowing the imposition of countervailing duties in order to protect the American market to make sure that the American market is in a competitive position when it comes to our competitors in China and making sure that when we go to the battlefield of the marketplace that that marketplace is put on an even, level playing field so that we can compete squarely. As my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) just articulated, I bet on the American worker every single time when we have a marketplace that is level, that is fair, and that is even. And that's why I ask all my colleagues--all of my colleagues--to join us in sending a message today by passing the subject bill and sending a message to the world, to the world economy and to the world markets that America will compete on an even playing field and allow the imposition of countervailing duties to make sure that we have free marketplace principles in place that protect our American workers and protect our American job creators. For that, I wholeheartedly support and stand with hardworking taxpayers across this country. I ask all colleagues to join in support of this resolution and legislation.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Texas for coming down to the floor tonight. I am honored to join you tonight to have this conversation about developing a comprehensive American energy plan that will lead to energy independence for America, but in the short term, put many Americans back to work. We've all been talking about it for months now. This Congress is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. And right here, right now, today, tonight, we have before us--be it the Keystone pipeline, 20,000 jobs. Here the gentleman from Colorado is talking about another project with 50,000 jobs immediately available to be put back into place. I just do not understand why we have not been able to come together and have a President that says, You know what, I'm not going to bow to the political pressure. I'm going to lead. But yet he bowed to the Hollywood elite, to the folks when it came to the Keystone pipeline, and rejected the Keystone pipeline, with 20,000 people, families, American families who are ready to go to work. And he said ``no.'' I appreciate the effort that you are putting together here because, as you know and as you have indicated--and in my area of the United States, up in upstate New York, we're dealing with the issue of natural gas development. In particular, Marcellus shale natural gas development. I did listen to the President's State of the Union. I listened to it intently. And I heard his commitment to producing our natural gas, because he had come to the conclusion that natural gas is a safe, domestic source of energy for today, tomorrow, and for all of America. To me, I hope the President was sincere in that statement because I joined him in that sentiment in that we have, in our shale formations in America, an amount of natural gas equal to 100 years of supply for America. People have described it as if we are the Saudi Arabia, the United States of America will be the Saudi Arabia of natural gas supply for the world. That type of resource is a game changer. And we are talking about thousands of jobs. We are talking about the ability to create an energy platform that allows our manufacturers to come back to America. That is one thing I think we have joined on both sides of the aisle to be committed to is to build things in America again. And why does a natural gas platform of energy lead to building in America again? It's simple. It's simple, and I know my colleagues know it. Because if you can drive down utility costs, if you can stabilize them in the long term, 40, 50 years, manufacturers will look at America and say: You know what? What we make up by going overseas to China because of the labor difference--the wage difference that they achieve by going over there and tapping into those labor pools they will make up by coming back to America because the utility costs will be stable. They'll be cheaper, and they will be able to build things again in America because they want to build here, because the American worker is the best worker in the world. The quality of work and products that come from the American worker are the best by far. And the logistics that they don't have to deal with by having manufacturing items over in China and other areas of the world are gone because we're manufacturing in our backyard. So this energy policy all relates to not only energy independence, but it relates to the manufacturing sector of America and bringing America back to the forefront of being the leading manufacturer in the world. That is why I am so committed to the issue of developing natural gas. Now we have to do it safely. We have to do it responsibly. The President has conceded that point. Many scientists, the data and the information that is out there, have come to the conclusion we can do it safely and responsibly, but we need to lead and formulate a comprehensive approach to tapping that resource and bringing people back to work through the development of that resource in a responsible manner. One last point I wanted to bring up, and I so appreciate all of the comments you've made here. Right today we have before us in this Chamber, or will soon have before us in this Chamber, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, and what a commonsense piece of legislation that I think this bill represents. What it is essentially saying is we're going to take our natural resources in America and we're going to use the dollars that come from developing those natural resources on our public lands to rebuild the infrastructure of America. That, to me, is commonsense policy coming from Washington, taking our natural resources from the ground and putting it into our bridges, our highways, our roads, so that generations of people will have the infrastructure in place with its water, sewer, roads, bridges, in order to have the manufacturing of tomorrow, to have generations of people working. With that, I have come here tonight to show my support to you on the issue of developing American energy. And I haven't even touched on the national security issues, and I haven't even touched on the final point that I will make. My final point is that I have gone all over this Nation and I have gone all over my district and I've gone all over the northern tier of Pennsylvania where Marcellus Shale is being developed, and I have talked to so many people. We have spent so many taxpayer dollars here in Washington to try to educate people and bring them out of poverty. You know, Mr. Gardner, from my conversations with the people in the northern tier of Pennsylvania, I have heard repeatedly because of this resource development, this natural gas that we're developing in a safe and reliable manner, I'm able to put my kids through college. I'm able to maybe go out and venture into a business that otherwise I wouldn't be able to do because I didn't have the cash to do it. That is going to empower generations of American families for many generations to take them out of poverty and get them an education; and it's all being done on private capital, capital not coming from taxpayers but coming from good old-fashioned American business, coming out of the free enterprise system, utilizing those natural resources that are owned by those individuals that are empowering people for generations. And it's not being done on the taxpayer dollar. To me, we should be joining hands and applauding that type of development of natural resource and commit ourselves to this comprehensive policy.

Mr. REED. Amen.

Mr. REED. Well, I tell you, being from New York, being down in the northern tier of Pennsylvania, right now New York is in the process of finalizing its regulations to make sure that it can be done safely and responsibly, but I have the honor of representing the 29th Congressional District, which is right along the Pennsylvania border. What we have seen is we have seen the spillover effect from the economic opportunities and economic development that is going on in the State of Pennsylvania from the development of the Marcellus Shale. One of the counties in my district, Chemung County, is leading the State in sales tax revenue numbers because of the economic impact coming across the border for our hotels, our restaurants, all of the activities we have talked about. I've heard from retailers and I've heard from a dry cleaning outfit in my hometown of Corning, New York, that was raising an additional $6,000 a month by cleaning the overalls and the uniforms from the Marcellus Shale workers that are performing work in the State of Pennsylvania. Do you know what that means? That means he was able to give his employees a bonus for the first time in years. He was able to hire more people in our home area. I mean, this development touches so many lives and so many people, from the actual pulling of the natural gas out, and all of the indirect benefits and everything else that's out there.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank my good friend from Oregon for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have sat on this conference committee now for a bunch of months, and there's been a lot of money spent in Washington, DC, and elsewhere around this Nation saying that the Republican Party is the Party of No. Well, let me tell you as I sat in this conference committee what I heard, and yesterday was the best example of it. I heard commonsense proposals in the House bill brought to the conference committee, brought to the Senate Democrats and said, Look, we have all supported this. Ninety percent of these pay-fors for the policy that we're trying to enact, the President--the Democratic President--supports. And what I heard repeatedly yesterday was, No, no, no. We are not going to accept these pay-fors. Even though our President said we'll accept them, even though we've supported them in the past, what I heard yesterday was, No, we're not going to pay for it. So I think to the American people there is a clear division here. What we stand for in the House Republican side and in this Chamber is that we are going to pay for the decisions coming out of Washington, DC, going forward. And I will have to say that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and my particular colleagues in the Senate on the Democratic side of the aisle, have tried to go back to the old politics of do you know what? Let's just call everything emergency spending and we don't have to pay for it. That's old-school politics. That philosophy is done and over with because the hardworking American taxpayers back at home, Mr. Speaker, deserve for us to pay our bills, and that is what we're doing. I am all for true dialogue. If the Senate is not going to accept the pay-fors that are in the House bill, then send over whatever proposals you have to cover this bill, especially when we're talking about Social Security taxes and when we're talking about payroll taxes that are the sole revenue to fund Social Security. I've met so many constituents back at home, Mr. Speaker, that have repeatedly told me, Why are you cutting these taxes? Why are you jeopardizing Social Security? And what I have said to them is, I believe that you need to keep your money, not give it to Washington and let them waste it and spend it on policies that are out of here. But what we will do is I will stand and make sure that Social Security is made whole. That's what I'm looking for in this dialogue is that we come together, recognize that the politics of old is done and we will pay for our decisions. And once that happens, I am confident we can come together and do what hardworking taxpayers in America want us to do, and that is extend the payroll, take care of the unemployment, and take care of our doctors so that physicians can see our seniors in America and that Medicare is preserved.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Well, I thank my colleague from Colorado for hosting this Special Order tonight and for truly engaging in a conversation we need to have with America. And I would like to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Ohio, when Mr. Johnson spoke so eloquently about the need for a comprehensive energy policy, an all-of-the-above approach to getting us off of foreign sources of energy once and for all. I think Mr. Johnson really hit the nail on the head with his description of the American Dream, or exceptionalism, and the ability that in America we develop a plan; when we have a vision, we can accomplish anything. And I don't know if you noticed, Mr. Gardner, I'm over here on the other side of the Chamber tonight. You know, I'm an individual who is proud to be a member of the Republican Party, and many of the times I'm standing on that side of the Chamber. But I am willing to come over on this side of the Chamber to speak tonight to say to my fellow colleagues across the aisle that my hand is open for us to join together on this issue and many issues that face Americans back at home, and this issue in particular because it impacts all of us, all 300 million people across America; because when we can commit ourselves, as the President did at the State of the Union, to developing a comprehensive energy policy of all of the above, I am confident that we can achieve that energy independence. And tonight's discussion on the Keystone pipeline is an example of an administration and of folks engaging in old-school politics rather than focusing on good, sound policy that is going to achieve that dream of energy independence because, as my colleagues have articulated, this project has been fully vetted, years of environmental studies and reviews. The primary agency, FERC, who had the responsibility to oversee the project, came to the conclusion that there were no significant environmental impacts that were associated with this project. And it was on the verge of approval at the Department of State whose, if I remember correctly, primary mission is to deal with diplomatic issues. Because this pipe crosses an international border, the President used the final act from an agency who is focused on diplomatic issues to reach in and, for political purposes, say no. I applaud the gentleman from Arizona, and I associate myself with his words, that we have given another chance to the President to do what is right in our and my opinion. This is a project that is ready to go. It will put 20,000 people back to work, and that's what we've been talking about here for months is improving this economy: jobs, jobs, jobs. And with the stroke of a pen, the President said no to 20,000 jobs and 100,000 jobs on top of that. And he put an obstacle in the barrier of his own State of the Union message that we are going to accomplish energy independence with an all-of-the-above approach by taking action a week before and saying, for political purposes, we're not going to be able to achieve that goal. That has to stop, ladies and gentlemen. I'm proud to be part of this freshman class that has come in November 2010, and I fundamentally believe that we are changing the conversation in Washington to focusing on policy over politics. And this is an example, under this pipeline project, that is going to be directly related to that change in conversation in Washington because it's a commonsense type of approach to the job. It's about focusing on people, getting them back to work, committing ourselves to a vision of energy independence, which is so critical to our future, and also so critical to our future in the manufacturing sector, because if we can get energy from domestic supplies here, and we can secure those energy sources long term, we're going to have lower utility rates, manufacturers are going to invest in America again, and we're going to start building things again. That has to be the cornerstone of what we're talking about. And the Keystone pipeline is but an example of that. One last point I would like to address. We here in Washington can impact people every day, and this is an example of that impact in a positive way, because if we put the Keystone pipeline online, every time an American goes to the pump to fill up his gas tank or her gas tank, you will see the immediate results of it in a lower price, unless we continue down the policy that the President has committed us to in not constructing this pipeline. Every penny counts in this economy. So I'm proud to be down here on the floor tonight to talk about this key issue and also the bigger issue of making sure that we stay focused on the American Dream of energy independence. And with that, I wholeheartedly join my colleagues tonight.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman, my colleague, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague indicated, I am a small business owner. I am proud of the business that we started up in Corning, New York, and the many people that we have employed in that business, Mr. Speaker. I also know that during times when people are in trouble or businesses are in trouble, they have to make the hard decision of laying some people off, and I can empathize and understand when those individuals are in that situation. But what we're talking about here tonight, ladies and gentlemen, is just some commonsense reforms to allow the States to have the flexibility to do what is best for them in their local jurisdictions to try to empower the men and women from their districts so that they have the opportunity to go back to work. I wholeheartedly disagree with the concept that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguing for tonight to strip that language that would give States the flexibility to do commonsense reforms in unemployment, not taking away the unemployment program--no one is talking about doing that. What we're talking about, ladies and gentlemen, is implementing the ability for States to have people get an education, or require people to get a GED, to give them tools so that when they go into the marketplace they have the ability to get a paycheck again rather than an unemployment check. That should be a goal that we in Washington, D.C., share across both aisles, and we should send the message to America, You know what? We get it in Washington. We don't necessarily have all the answers here. We should defer to the people closer to the people back in our States and in our local communities. This is what our proposal is about. That is where these commonsense reforms are coming from, and, again, no one is talking about taking out the net that's associated with unemployment insurance. We're talking about commonsense reforms that will give people the tools to get back to work and take care of themselves.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I'd just remind my good colleague on the other side of the aisle that we were here. The House Republicans were here December 22. December 26, conferees weren't even named yet. I was here Thursday and Friday of New Year's working on the issue. We're ready to do the work. But there is one thing that we will not yield on, that we have demonstrated years in Washington, DC, of fiscal irresponsibility. And until we came in, this freshman class in November 2010, there was an attitude of, Don't worry about how we're going to cover it; don't worry about how we're going to pay for it. That attitude has changed, and that's why I'm proud to yield 2 minutes to a fellow freshman Member from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

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

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

Mr. REED. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I so appreciate my colleague reminding me of the offsets on the doc fix bill. And I would just like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this entire Chamber that in the House-passed bill that was sent to the Senate, 90 percent--90 percent--of those offsets were recommended and supported by the President of the United States, President Obama. Now, I'm not saying that that's the final thing that we can agree to. By no means am I saying that. But what I will say is that we did our work. We found common ground with the President's own recommendations and policies that he supported and sent it to the Senate. At this point in time, I still remind the American people who is at the table: the House. Where is the United States Senate? And may I remind the Speaker and the American people, I say the entire Senate but, in particular, those on the other side of the aisle. With that, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say simply this, that we wholeheartedly agree with the general sentiment that has been brought to the House Chamber today, with the motion that is before this body, that we need to do our work in the conference. We cannot wait until the last minute. We wholeheartedly join in that sentiment, and we have demonstrated that commitment by what we have already done. Our actions should speak louder than our words. The House Republicans were here on December 22, asking the Senate to come back to the table and do the people's work. And we are ready to do that work now. We need the Senate to come to the table in good faith, finalize this package on a long-term basis, bring certainty to our payroll tax rates, bring certainty to our providers, how they get paid under Medicare, and take care of the unemployment extension situation. But we must go into this conference with our eyes wide open. We were sent to Washington in November 2010 because the American people recognized the fiscal crisis that is coming to our shores in America if we don't get our debt under control, and the habit that creates it; the spending problem of Washington, D.C., corrected once and for all, or we will not have a future in America. And that is unacceptable to me, as a father of two, and as the father of three, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) on the other side of the aisle, also indicated. We are fighting for our children and our grandchildren who have yet to see the face of this Earth. So I join with my colleagues in sending a message that we will do the work. The hardworking taxpayers in America deserve no less. The U.S. Senate should come to the table, find a solution to these issues, and we will wholeheartedly join hands on our side of the aisle when we do it in a responsible way that will take care of this situation in a long-term fashion, not the short-term Band-Aid that Washington, D.C., for so long has thought is good policy at the expense of the hardworking taxpayers of America. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I do have to remind my good friend on the other side of the aisle that, on December 22, House Republicans were here. We were sitting in the conference ready to get to work, and conferees on their side of the aisle had not even been named by that point in time. I was here over the New Year's break, Thursday, Friday, working on this issue in preparation for the conference. Where was the Senate? Nowhere to be found. So let us be straight with the American people. Let's be open and honest with the American people that who's ready to do the work is us in the House Chamber on the House Republican side. We demonstrated it at the end of 2011 by staying here. We may have been hurt politically or lost that political battle. But you know what? The American people want us to do not what is politically the winning strategy, but what is the best policy for the American people. And that's what we stood up for. Maybe that message didn't get home to the men and women back in our districts immediately. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I went back in my district and I had the question presented to me at my local church, local grocery store, why were you still down there? What was the problem? What were you fighting for? And we went through the details of the policy that we're talking about here with the payroll tax rate, the unemployment extension, and the Medicare reimbursement for our providers under Medicare, and they said: Well, obviously, you needed to stay there to get it done. And that's what we have to do. We have to adopt the attitude of, we have been sent here to do the people's work. It's time not for us to wait until the last minute, I wholeheartedly agree. But it's also time that we just do not leave town because we've accomplished what was politically possible or what was in our political interest. I wholeheartedly am committed to finding the real solutions, the real policy initiatives, and that's what we are standing for on this side of the aisle. With that, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, again I'm heartened because, as the gentlelady spoke, I came to the conclusion we're in full agreement. House Republicans are in full agreement, so that gives us hope, ladies and gentlemen. That gives us hope going into this conference that what we're going to be able to put together with the doc fix and how our providers are paid under Medicare is a solution that will be a long- term solution to this situation that politically is required to go through all the time because of this doc fix situation we find ourselves in. But I would remind this Chamber and I would remind all of my colleagues that we are in the midst of a fiscal crisis in this Nation that needs to be respected. And as we talk about making sure that our providers under Medicare are taken care of on a long-term basis, we need to go into this discussion with our eyes wide open, and that is that fiscal crisis forces us to cover these costs, for us to be responsible in Washington, DC, for one time and pay for what we are doing and live within our means. That's what our proposal for 2 years out of the House Chamber before the end of year passed by a bipartisan fashion did--took care of 2 years of the doc fix, fully paid for and offset. What we need to do is bring that attitude into the conference to get it taken care of. I so heartily agree with my colleague, the esteemed lady, and her position in coming up with a long-term solution for our doctors under Medicare. But we do need to be responsible and we have to offset and make sure that it is paid for. That is the reality of the situation we find ourselves in in America in the fiscal crisis we now face, and it will be the reality of our Nation's fiscal prosperity going forward if we so choose to honor it. With that, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. I reserve the balance of my time.