Tom Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. REED. In closing on these two important bills that are now before this House, I say that H.R. 1213 and H.R. 1214 are dealing with an issue that the former Speaker of the House envisioned when she said during the debate on the underlying health care bill, ObamaCare, that Congress needed to pass the bill so the American public could find out what is in it. Well, we're finding out what's in it. These two bills will address provisions that dictate and mandate billions of dollars of spending without any additional congressional oversight. To me, that is the critical piece. That is the critical piece and why I urge my colleagues to support this rule and pass this legislation, because this body must stand up and adhere to its institutional responsibilities of controlling the spending of our country because we are broke. That's what an army was sent here to do in November, and I'm proud to be part of that freshman class of 87 Republican Members of the House that are coming here and looking at every dime, every dollar that is being spent here in our Nation's capital, because our Nation cannot afford it anymore, and no longer will we pass the buck on to our children and our grandchildren so that they have to pay this bill that we are no longer taking care of here in Washington, D.C. I would say that what we're trying to do with this health care debate is put back into the debate in front of the American public the focus of this new Republican majority, and that is we are going to deal with this problem by getting to the root of the problem. The root of this problem is increasing health care costs that are going through the roof. What we're dealing with here when we look at the underlying ObamaCare package is we're trying to minimize and mitigate health insurance costs. That's a piece of the puzzle. But the crux of the issue and the fundamental issue that we face is the increasing costs of health care, and that is what we are doing on this side of the aisle. And we are focusing day and night to make sure that we engage in responsible oversight, we strip the mandatory language of spending that is being created out of these bills, and we go forward so our children and grandchildren will have a greater future than we envisioned and enjoyed in our lifetimes.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. REED. House Resolution 236 provides one rule for consideration of H.R. 1213 under a structured process, making all five Democratic amendments in order that comply with the rules of the House; and H.R. 1214 under a modified open process that gives all Members an opportunity to preprint their amendments in the Congressional Record and have them considered on the floor. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to offer a rule to allow us to debate H.R. 1213 and H.R. 1214. H.R. 1213 would repeal mandatory funding provided to States in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish American health benefit exchanges. H.R. 1214 would repeal mandatory spending for school-based health center construction. Quite simply, our country is broke, and we cannot continue to spend money like we have in the past. Our spending crisis is clear. Slush funds and unlimited tabs on the Treasury must be the first to go, particularly when they are being used to fund government-centered takeover of our Nation's health care system that does not improve care, does not lower costs and, simply, we cannot afford. The American people sent a clear message last November: ObamaCare is not the answer; stop spending money that our country doesn't have, money we are borrowing and spending on the backs of our children and grandchildren who will be left footing the bill. H.R. 1213, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee who has been a leader in this fight, repeals the provision that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services a blank check to determine how much to facilitate enrollment in the State health care exchanges set up by the underlying bill. The law includes no definition of what that means. For example, a 100 percent premium subsidy for individuals to enroll in the exchange would not be prohibited under the statute. In the year since ObamaCare was enacted, it has already become clear the law set up an unworkable and an unaffordable system. There have been countless numbers of waivers given out and slush funds such as this to allow the Federal Government to continue to push more money onto the States, force them to accept provisions that simply don't make sense and don't work. Just because the authors of ObamaCare could not determine the amount necessary to fund these programs does not mean American taxpayers should allow the Secretary to cash this blank check. Secretary Sebelius, in a March 3 hearing, testified that there are no monetary limitations on the size of the appropriation and the law requires no further congressional action for the Secretary to spend these funds. CBO estimates a reduction in direct spending by an estimated $14.6 billion over the next 10 years would be achieved by successful passage of this bill. And that is just an estimate. With a blank check, the spending could be much higher. Mr. Speaker, I submit that giving any executive branch official a blank check is a bad idea, particularly when we already have a $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone and a $14 trillion national debt. We must vote to repeal this provision. In regards to H.R. 1214, introduced by Representative Burgess of Texas, who is one of the physician members of our Republican Conference, it repeals the school-based health center construction fund. ObamaCare provides $200 million in direct appropriations through fiscal year 2013, which this legislation would rescind. This money is only for facilities with an express prohibition on using the funds for personnel or to provide health services at these newly constructed facilities. The facilities could be built with no guarantee, therefore, that the center would ever see or care for one single patient. This fund is yet another example of the wasteful, duplicative spending that caused ObamaCare to have such a huge price tag and another example of spending we simply cannot afford. ObamaCare and the stimulus bill have already made $3 billion available to the Department of Health and Human Services for facility improvements at community health centers. Providing an additional $50 million a year is duplicative. We do not need to build for building's sake. Therefore, we must vote to repeal this provision. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. General Leave

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 236 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I now yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REED. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. REED. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nancy Kurk, who is the Department President of the American Legion Auxiliary Department of New York. Department President Kurk is currently serving as the Department President for the 2010-2011 term. Nancy has selflessly served the American Legion Auxiliary and her community for over 30 years. As Department President, one of her main initiatives is the ``Hats Off to Homeless Veterans,'' which is expected to raise $50,000. All the money raised during this endeavor will either be designated to a specific shelter by the donor or, if unspecified, will be donated to the Zion House, a shelter for homeless female veterans from all across New York. Raising funds for homeless veterans is only the latest in a long line of accomplishments for Department President Kurk. For over 30 years she has demonstrated commendable service and dedication towards the American Legion Auxiliary and has devoted her time to numerous hours of volunteer service to helping our Veterans. In fact, during the current term, she has visited all 62 counties in the State of New York in support of American Legion Auxiliary activities. Department President Kurk is a 34-year member of the Robson-Savage Unit No. 546 and also currently serves Yates County as Legislative and Past President's Parley Chairman. Among her many notable achievements, Department President Kurk has served twice as Field Day Chairman at the Canandaigua VAMC. Additionally, she has also serviced the American Legion Auxiliary Department as VAVS Deputy and Poppy Supervisor at the Canandaigua Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Nancy is also an Independent Living Skills Trainer with Sibley Nursing Personnel, Inc., where she helps individuals who have suffered from traumatic brain injury to regain their personal independence both at home and within the community. So in conclusion, I am proud to recognize and honor one of the finest servants of the 29th District of New York, Nancy Kurk. The years of service she has rendered to the American Legion Auxiliary and to our local communities is invaluable, and I commend her for all of her accomplishments.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, the recent bombing in Jerusalem and sharp rise in unprovoked rocket attacks from Gaza have marked an escalation in violence by the Palestinian terrorists backed by Hamas and Iran. These attacks are a stark reminder of the constant threat Israel faces from those who want to destroy the Israeli state. It is also a reminder that the friendship and partnership the United States has with Israel is one that must always be protected and enhanced. Israel must be able to count on the continued support of the United States and the American people as they endeavor to live in a democracy free from the threat of attack. In just the first 3 months of 2011, terrorists have fired more than 150 mortars and rockets into Israel and murdered five members of an Israeli family in their West Bank home. More frightening, Israeli forces intercepted 50 tons of Iranian arms, including advanced anti- ship missiles and radar, 2,500 mortar rounds, and 67,000 AK-47 rounds destined for Hamas in Gaza. The acquisition of these kinds of weapons makes it clear that Palestinian terrorists do not intend to back down from their campaign of terror. This violence against the Israeli people is aided by the tacit compliance of the Palestinian Authority, which thus far has not stepped up its anti-terrorism efforts to root out Hamas and other terrorist elements associated with the Fatah Party. Instead, the Palestinians are generally accepting of this continued violence, martyring those who kill innocent civilians. Recently, the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who killed 35 Israelis after hijacking a bus, had a town square named in his honor. This behavior--and general popular acceptance of terror-- only encourages further violence. We cannot allow this escalated level of violence to be dismissed as just more back and forth in a protracted conflict between Israel and Palestine. There is never justification for attacks on innocent civilians, and we must demand that the anti-Israel sentiment that pervades Palestine be addressed. The Israelis remain committed to the peace process, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done his part in making concessions that pave the way for substantive talks. This has been met by a refusal by the Palestinians to even recognize Israel's right to exist. Every sovereign nation has a duty and right to defend its citizens. As a result, the United States must continue to support Israel's right to self-defense. Congress must ensure that the administration does not call on Israel to make concessions that endanger its security without demanding similar changes from the Palestinians. Congress must make clear its support for Israel's right to defend its citizens and demand the United Nations enforce a ban on Iranian exports of sophisticated weapons to Hamas and other terrorist groups.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of former Corning Mayor John C. Kostolansky, Sr., who passed away on March 27. John began working at Corning Glass Works in 1940, a company with whom he stayed until his retirement in 1988. During this time, he also served on the Corning Painted Post School Board, spending 2 years as President and 4 years as Vice-President. John was no stranger to Capitol Hill. He served my district honorably as Treasurer to U.S. Representative Amo Houghton for 8 years. John then served as Mayor of Corning from 1989 to 1991, where he was responsible for appointing a Blue Ribbon Commission to bring the city out of its deep financial problems. His vision and ability to make tough decisions should be an example to all public servants. John was one of the most hardworking men I knew. There really was no part of the Corning community he didn't touch. He was involved in so many organizations, groups, and causes, I could not possibly name them all. Because of his active role in making Corning the wonderful place it is today, he will be sorely missed by all of us who call Corning home. I thank John for his service, and the precious mark he has left on the 29th Congressional District of New York.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the current debt crisis our Nation faces and a strategy to rein in some significant federal spending, while strengthening our national defense initiatives. A paper written by Mallory Factor, published by Forbes on March 9, 2011, identified a strategy intended to reduce the defense budget. As the defense budget represents nineteen percent of the total federal budget, the cuts would have a significant effect on deficit reduction and highlight our commitment, as a Congress, to the American public that we will leave ``no stone unturned'' as we work to reduce the total budget deficit. Mr. Factor's article does not suggest that we take an undiscerning approach to cutting the defense budget, rather ``Congress must reconsider the military's mission and what activities it should undertake.'' In this assessment by Mr. Factor, and supported by myself, there is no indication that American military power be restricted in missions concerning American security. Rather, that auxiliary duties performed by the military (e.g., humanitarian missions, peacekeeping, nation building and disaster relief) ought to be separated from the core mission of the military; to provide for the common defense of our great Nation. Further, by separating and focusing these mission directives, we will produce a Department of Defense budget that clearly defines where our money is being spent. This will allow for a thorough and honest review of the allocation of such dollars and produce the foundation upon which a responsible debate can be held in this chamber on an issue of our generation, spending and debt. Therefore all options must be on the table as we, the 112th Congress, have committed ourselves to deficit reduction. For our future, and for the future of our children and grandchildren, it is imperative that we undertake this difficult task in the short term to ensure our Nation's viability for the long term.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. That's one of the great myths. I've heard these myths throughout my travels throughout the district and down here in D.C. that the hydraulic fluid, that there is some secret, that they don't want to talk about it, they don't want to disclose it. My understanding is that that truly is a myth. And you have here today I see on this chart kind of identified the ingredients. Would you agree?

Mr. REED. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. REED. My colleague's exactly right. And if you can join me in this conversation, because by no means am I an expert in this technology. But what I have read and researched and what's been presented to me makes sense. Because you're absolutely right. What happens is then they take, after there is some fracturing of the formation of the shale--there is a hydraulic fracture, hence the hydraulic fracturing, the hydraulic portion of that technology name-- what they do is they pump volumes of water, primarily water and sand, down the well site and into that horizontally-drilled well site and bore, and pump in water at high pressures. We are talking high pressure when we are talking about this process and this technology that not only pump into those fissures, those microscopic fissures that we're talking about that are the result of this fracturing process. As they pump that water and sand into those fissures, when they withdraw the fracked material, those proppants as they are called, as my colleague's identified, keep those fissures open so that natural gas has the ability to have a natural, by way of pressures, ability to migrate to the well, to the bore site, to the hole, if you would, and then flow back up to the surface and be recovered and developed, and put into our pipeline systems to supply the energy that we all have become dependent upon. Does my colleague have anything to add to that process?

Mr. REED. I will. Please.

Mr. REED. I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania. I do want to get into the process. I have a chart here today on the floor of the House to kind of go over exactly what we are talking about when it comes to this--I thank my colleague for joining us this evening--to talk about what we are dealing with here, this process of tapping into the shale formations, and in particular Marcellus shale formation. Really what we are talking about is kind of the combination of the existing technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. That's kind of the game-changing combination of existing technologies that have been joined together to in an innovative way come up with a way to tap these deep, large natural gas reserves in an environmentally safe way that will allow this gas to be recovered in an economically viable way. So with that being said, I have got a chart here. And as many people know, there is the old traditional vertical well drilling which is represented, before we go into the horizontal role here, as straight down. The old vertical well is to punch a hole in the ground, as you said, 37 feet with a wooden bit, to one of the original finds in your district. That's what we're talking about. But the horizontal drilling, the change in the horizontal drilling techniques that we're talking about is the ability to go down very deep into the Earth's crust. We are talking that this formation in Marcellus shale is about 6,000 to 8,000 feet below the surface. What happens is they drill from the surface down to that formation. Then what they are able to do, and I have seen this with my own eyes, and I am sure my colleague from Pennsylvania has seen it also, they are able to turn that drilling bit, and turn the drill horizontally. So they go down vertically, and then as they get to the point where the formation is located and where the natural gas has been identified in the Marcellus shale formation, in the natural gas supply we are talking about tonight, and they turn that drill bit and they go out horizontally. And they go out thousands of feet. They go out and drill and open up that formation, that shale formation, to potential development for natural gas recovery. After they turn that drill bit and they take that horizontal turn, they go out and then they engage in the process which is called hydraulic fracturing. Now, hydraulic fracturing has been around quite a long time. What essentially that means is that they are going in, they drill the well, and then they detonate some small explosives in order to crack the formation, in order to open up the formation, open up this shale rock that is not shale or slate that you are accustomed to on the surface of the Earth. I held it the other day. A gentleman came into my office, had a piece of shale in the Midwest area, and it's as solid as granite. There are natural gas molecules that are trapped into that granite formation, that shale formation. What they have to do is they have to detonate small fissures and open up cracks in that formation so that the natural gas molecules have a path to go back up the bore, up the well site and be recovered at the surface.

Mr. REED. I was just going to move onto that, but I will yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. REED. But it's redundancies built into the process.