Bill Shuster

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. Thank you for bringing us all together here on the floor this evening to talk about such an important issue and an important bipartisan piece of legislation. H.R. 1861, the Infrastructure Jobs and Energy Independence Act, is a bill whose time has come. We came together, Republicans and Democrats, to figure out ways to find the funds without raising taxes to invest in America's infrastructure. And this bill does that from investing in clean energy, rebuilding America's aging locks, dams, bridges and roads, creating jobs which, of course, all the American people are very focused on; and this bill will do just that. It invests in cleaning up our environment and it, again, has one of the largest infrastructure investments in the history of the United States. With this bill we can do that and, again, it doesn't raise taxes. Opening up our offshore resources and bringing that energy to bear to make us less energy independent is absolutely critical. In Pennsylvania we know firsthand with the Marcellus shale gas play that's there. It gives Pennsylvania a second chance, a second chance to revitalize our economy in Pennsylvania and once again become one of the driving States in the economy of the United States of America. So we know that firsthand, and it was Pennsylvania 150 years ago with its coal and its oil that was found there that made Pennsylvania so key in the growing and the building up of America. I want to focus on the funding that would go towards transportation, and my colleague has a great visual aid up there talking about the needs, almost a trillion dollars we need to invest over the next 15, 20 years in our roads and bridges. Aviation, $87 billion; our dams are very much in need; sewer and water, we have about a $300 billion backlog across this country to rebuild the infrastructure, to get rid of sewage waste and make sure we have clean drinking water; $5 billion in inland waterways and locks and dams, which are so critical. This country grew up, became a power because of our waterways and able to move goods at a very inexpensive rate. We need to revitalize those to continue to use those waterways that we have naturally. But it takes money to rebuild those locks and dams. When you look around America, I think everybody has driven across a pothole or sees a bridge that's crumbling or many of us live with tremendous congestion and, in fact, the congestion is crippling America. It costs American commuters approximately $115 billion a year because of wasted time and fuel, and those numbers continue to rise; 4.8 billion hours per year Americans are stuck in traffic. We have to find out a way to reinvest in the infrastructure that's made our country. When you talk about trade, how can you talk about trade and increasing trade if you can't figure out how to get those bulldozers, those Caterpillar tractors that are going to be shipped overseas. If you can't get them from Peoria, Illinois, to the ports of Philadelphia and the ports of Los Angeles to send them over there, they're going to sit in those yards. We've got to figure out a way to get commerce, not only in foreign markets, but also it's coming into this country. It's the transportation system that's absolutely vital to that. Today we currently are spending about $44 billion on our transportation system, highways, bridges, transit systems, when we actually should be spending at the Federal level about $62 billion. That number is going down because of our budget constraints. So we have got to find new revenues, and Congressman Murphy's H.R. 1861, this plan that we support in a bipartisan way, is going to do just that, get the funds to be able to invest in our infrastructure. Our infrastructure, by the way, when you look back to the Constitution of the United States, a lot of people say, well, government shouldn't be investing in a lot of things. And I agree, there's a lot of things we do in Washington, DC we shouldn't be investing in; but transportation is not one of those. From the time of our Founding Fathers in article I of the Constitution, it talks about the Federal Government regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several States regulating and encouraging commerce to build post offices and post roads. The post roads of the 1800s are the highways and byways of today. This Nation wouldn't be the great Nation it was if it weren't connected. And James Madison, the Father of the Constitution said: ``The power of establishing post roads must, in every view, be a harmless power, and may, perhaps, be judicious management, become productive of great public conveniency. Nothing which tends to facilitate the intercourse between the States can be deemed unworthy of the public care.'' Madison made that argument. Also early on in our history, under the Jefferson administration, they authorized the building, 100 percent Federal dollars, of Route 40, which went from Baltimore into the Ohio territory. They authorized it under Jefferson, and the construction was completed under Madison. It opened up the territory, the Ohio Territory, to be able to produce commerce and prosperity to America. So early on in our Nation, the Founding Fathers knew the importance of our waterways, of building roads, of connecting this country. And I on this side of the aisle can proudly say that it's been a Republican tradition in the United States Government and the United States Congress. Abraham Lincoln built the transcontinental railroad, not in the middle of a recession, but in the middle of the great Civil War. He knew how important it was to connect America, to make sure that we move commerce in an efficient way and a safe way. From there, Teddy Roosevelt building the Panama Canal, which connected the two coasts together by water, extremely important for us to become an international power in commerce and in trade. And then, of course, Eisenhower coming back from World War II, seeing what the Germans did with being able to move their troops around, had the idea that not only would it be good for America's security, but it would be good for America's commerce to connect this country. And that's exactly what he went about doing in the 1950s: we built the interstate highway system. I have talked to many of my colleagues that have said the roads have been built, we don't need to spend on them. But they're crumbling; they need to be rebuilt. And one of the facts that I think we all ought to remember, it took us 65 years to go from 200 million to 300 million people, and we crossed that threshold in about 2005 or 2006. It's only going to take us 30-some years to go from 300 million to 400 million. This Nation is going to continue to grow. We've got to be able to move people; we've got to be able to move our products throughout this country, to the ports to be able to trade globally. So this is something that has to become a national priority. I believe that this bill, 1861, will help it to become a reality with the funding levels needed to invest in our transportation system. Again, you invest in transportation, you can see the return on investment, whether it's economic development or jobs created in the short term from building it or the long term and the commerce that it produces and the efficiencies that it allows our businesses to have. Again, I thank the gentleman for bringing us together on a bipartisan basis. I would hope that more of our Members would sign up for this bill so we can push it to the finish line.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again stand up in support of what my colleagues from Wisconsin and from Florida have said over and over again. This is about sovereignty as well as doing what's right for the American traveling public. Mr. Waxman from California, he represents Los Angeles, folks from that part of the country, as my colleague from Florida said, will probably see direct flights no longer exist because if you start off from Los Angeles and fly to Paris, it's going to cost you more money. So I can see the airlines trying to save money by stopping in Philadelphia or stopping in New York so that they can decrease the tax that's going to be imposed upon them. As Mr. Petri has said, they're imposing it on the air over America. If they want to impose a tax in Europe on people doing business in Europe, they have the ability to do that. But to do it and start it over American airspace, over American departure, it's the wrong thing to do. And the Europeans know it. You already have the Italians and the Dutch already questioning the wisdom of doing this. So I think you're going to see people in Europe starting to change their attitude. And tonight is going to send a very, very strong signal to Europe that America is not going to allow the Europeans to impose a tax on us on our sovereign airspace.

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I couldn't agree more with my colleague from Florida (Ms. Brown) on her support for H.R. 2594. And to my colleagues watching or listening to this debate tonight, I would urge you to listen closely because this is a serious situation that's going to occur, and it's up to Congress to send a message to the European capitals of the world that the United States will not stand for this. This will be a terrible burden for not only our carriers but for aviation airlines, air travel, commercial travel around the world. There has never been to my knowledge a more ill-conceived program than what the European Union is putting forth in this emissions trading scheme. They're going forth with this; and first of all, I believe it's violating international law, the Chicago Convention which was signed in the mid-1940s, which set up ICAO which is the International Civil Aviation Organization, which coordinates and allows for transportation, commercial transportation, aviation transportation around the world to go forth in a way that is orderly. We come together at this international organization and build on consensus with rule-makings and regulations that help us to not only build our airplanes but to fly them around the world. What the Europeans are doing is they want to impose a tax on American air carriers, on all air carriers from their points of departure. So from our sovereign Nation and sovereign nations around the world, they're going to tax us to fly from, for instance, Los Angeles to Paris, which I believe, again, is a violation of the international agreement. I believe it is going to throw international aviation into an uncertain time period and may cause tremendous disruption in the flow of commerce through the air. The air transportation industry worldwide accounts for 8 percent of global GDP, but only accounts for 2 percent of the CO2 emissions. And the airline industry has a great incentive to decrease the amount of fuel they have because it is one of if not their largest expense. So air travel with the airliners we build today, with the way we organize our air traffic control patterns in the United States, we've been able to reduce CO2 emissions over the last 10 years significantly, and we'll continue to do that because, as I said, the incentive is there for the airline industry in America to use less fuel, not more fuel. It's better for their bottom lines. Once again, this trading scheme, this emissions trading scheme is going to impose a tax on our carriers. The Europeans estimate it will be about $2 a ticket. Our aviation industry believes it will be somewhere between $2.50 and $4 a ticket. We're not sure, but let's take the European numbers. So $2 a ticket, if you look over the last 10 years in the aviation industry in this country, we have lost $2.80 per ticket sold. So you're talking about an industry that is now recovering, an industry that seems to be making profits. If the Europeans are allowed to impose a $2 tax, it will probably wipe out the entire profits of our airline industry, so we can't let it stand. Also, it is a counterproductive measure. The Europeans say they're going to reduce emissions by this. I believe it is going to do the opposite. What's going to happen is these planes, not the new planes, but the old ones, refurbished ones, are going to go to other parts of the world. And these old planes do emit more CO2, and so there are going to be places in Africa and Asia and countries that can't afford the newest, latest, greatest Boeing or Airbus planes; and they're going to be spewing more emissions into the air. So it's counterproductive. And if you want an industry to invest in more fuel-efficient airliners, they need to make a profit. So you're going to take that profit away, and they will not be able to invest in new ways to reduce emissions coming from these airliners. So it's counterproductive. Also, if the Europeans want to reduce emissions, which they have not in their airline industry over the last 10 years, one of the things they could do, a huge step in the right direction, is to create a single European airspace. And they've been unable to do that. Today, when you fly in the United States, because we're so much more efficient than the Europeans, our planes land quicker. That means they're not up in the atmosphere putting out CO2 emissions. In the European theater, what you have are 25 or 30 different airspaces. So planes tend to circle around the airport for longer periods of time emitting more CO2. So if the Europeans are really serious about this, instead of just doing the easy thing and tax the Americans or tax the Chinese or tax the Russians, they should look seriously at turning their 30 different airspaces into a single European airspace. That would be a tremendous improvement and be a tremendous reduction in the CO2 that they are putting into the air. So my colleagues, if you're listening to this tonight, I urge you strongly to support the gentlelady from Florida and myself and others in a bipartisan way to send a strong vote, a strong message to the Europeans to don't go down this path. Let's sit down at the table and work together. We can do something that reduces CO2 without taxing American carriers and disrupting an international organization that's been so positive and so vital to commerce in this world.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, as the Co-Chairman of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the Republic of Azerbaijan as it celebrates the 20th anniversary of the restoration of Azerbaijan's independence. Located in a geopolitically dynamic region between Europe and Asia and sandwiched between Russia and Iran, Azerbaijan is a secular county with a predominantly Muslim population that has also been home for more than a millennia for vibrant Christian and Jewish communities. Azerbaijan and the United States enjoy a strong partnership founded on shared interests in global and regional security, energy and economic development, democratic reforms, and respect for human rights. President Obama has called Azerbaijan a ``young democracy'' during his meeting with Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev in September 2010, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed during her July 2010 trip to Azerbaijan that ``the bonds between the United States and Azerbaijan and deep, important, and durable.'' The past 20 years have seen Azerbaijan make great leaps in consolidating its sovereignty and political independence, and they are on the path towards building strong democratic institutions and a diversified economy that will further contribute to the welfare of the people of Azerbaijan. As I frequently remind my colleagues, the United States has more than 230 years of experience developing into the modern democracy we are today. It is critical that the United States provide our support and friendship to our partners in Azerbaijan as they continue to develop. Azerbaijan has opened Caspian energy resources to development by U.S. companies and has emerged as a key player for global energy security. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project is the most successful project contributing to the development of the South Caucasus region and has become the main artery delivering Caspian Sea hydrocarbons to the U.S. and our partners in Europe. Notably, in 2009 Azerbaijan provided nearly one quarter of all crude oil supplies to Israel and is considered a leading potential natural gas provider for the U.S.-supported Nabucco pipeline. It is important for the United States to continue to provide support for the development of the Southern Corridor that will further strengthen energy security. On the security front, immediately after 9/11 Azerbaijan was among the first to offer strong support and assistance to the United States. Azerbaijan participated in operations in Kosovo and Iraq and is actively engaged in Afghanistan, having recently doubled its military presence there. Azerbaijan has extended important over-flight clearances for U.S. and NATO flights to support ISAF and has regularly provided landing and refueling operations at its airports for U.S. and NATO forces. Also, Azerbaijan, as highlighted by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, plays an important role in the Northern Distribution Network, a supply route to Afghanistan by making available its ground and Caspian naval transportation facilities. Moreover, Azerbaijan provides vital support for U.S. nonproliferation efforts. Again, as the Co-Chairman of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, it is my distinct pleasure to congratulate the people of Azerbaijan and President Ilham Aliyev on the occasion of this important anniversary. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this important milestone in the history of Azerbaijan also encourage my colleagues who are interested in supporting Azerbaijan to join me as a member of Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, a bipartisan group of nearly 40 Members of Congress working to help foster the growing partnership between the United States and Azerbaijan and to advance U.S. interests in this pivotal region.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the Speaker. Today, I rise to honor the distinguished service of my good friend, His Excellency Yashar Aliyev, who in October 2006 was appointed by President Ilham Aliyez as Ambassador of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the United States of America. I am proud to serve as the cochairman of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus. Azerbaijan is an important strategic partner of the United States. Located in a geopolitically dynamic region between Europe and Asia and sandwiched between Russia and Iran, Azerbaijan is a secular country with a predominantly Muslim population that has also been home for more than a millennia to vibrant Christian and Jewish communities. Azerbaijan has opened Caspian energy resources to development by U.S. companies and has emerged as a key player for global energy security. On the security front, immediately after 9/11, Azerbaijan was among the first to offer strong support and assistance to the United States. Azerbaijan participated in operations in Kosova and Iraq and is actively engaged in Afghanistan, having recently doubled its military presence there. Ambassador Aliyev has made an indelible mark on deepening U.S. and Azerbaijan relations. Bilateral trade is expanding as Azerbaijan diversifies its economy, enabling it to increasingly contribute to the economic growth of the United States. Baku and Washington cooperate on counterterrorism and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, this continued development of Azerbaijan's natural resources contributes greatly to the energy security of the United States and Europe. Working with Ambassador Aliyev, we have more than doubled the size of the Azerbaijan Caucus in Congress and continue to bring attention to this vital strategic partner. Prior to his appointment as Ambassador, Aliyev served as Azerbaijan's permanent representative to the United Nations from 2002 to 2006. During this period he was chairman of the Fourth Committee of Special Political and Decolonization of the 60th U.N. General Assembly, vice president of the 59th General Assembly, vice president of the Economic and Social Council from 2004 to 2005, and vice president of the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in 2001. Ambassador Aliyev began his diplomatic career at the United Nations in 1992, serving as political affairs counselor and charge d'affaires of Azerbaijan's permanent mission. He was also Azerbaijan's first delegate to the First and Fourth Committees at the 47th through 56th sessions of the United Nations General Assembly. Having joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Azerbaijan in 1989, Ambassador Aliyev held the posts of political officer, first secretary and deputy director in the Ministry's Department of Information and Political Analysis, as well as director of the Department of International Organizations. Ambassador Aliyev took up oriental studies at Azerbaijan State University in 1972 and received the school's highest degree in 1977. He pursued postgraduate research at the Oriental Studies Institute of Russia's Academy of Sciences in Moscow from 1980 to 1982. In the early 1990s, he also studied for a year at the Diplomatic Academy of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is fluent in English, Arabic, Russian, and Turkish. On a personal note, I will miss Ambassador Aliyev, and I extend to him my highest regards and well wishes, to him and to his family in all their future endeavors. In our years working together, the Ambassador has become a truly valued friend. It has been my pleasure to visit Azerbaijan twice with him and also to host him in my district in Pennsylvania on two occasions, including sharing a recent birthday celebration together. Ambassador Aliyev, best wishes in all your future endeavors. I look forward to building on our future partnership with Azerbaijan and continuing our friendship in years to come. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, as the Co-Chairman of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Azerbaijan and the Azeri people for their ongoing support of the United States and our allies in the Global War on Terror. Azerbaijan has been a consistent supporter of U.S. efforts in the fight against terrorism, and the Azeris have worked with us to strengthen economic and political stability in the Caspian region. It is important that we recognize the sacrifices made by our allies and continue to thank them for their support. As we reflect back on the recently passed 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we must remember that the fight against terrorism is not a fight against Islam. On September 11, 2001, Americans of all faiths and citizens from around the world tragically lost their lives. Today, uniformed and civilian men and women around the world work shoulder to shoulder to combat the ongoing threat of terrorist attacks that don't just affect the United States, but virtually every nation. This effort is not one of faith; rather it is an effort to keep citizens of all nations safe from barbaric acts of terrorism. Immediately after 9/11, Azerbaijan, a majority Muslim nation, was among the first to offer strong support and assistance to the United States. Azerbaijan participated in operations Iraq and is actively engaged in Afghanistan, having recently doubled its military presence there. Azerbaijan has extended important over-flight clearances for U.S. and NATO flights to support ISAF and has regularly provided landing and refueling operations at its airports for U.S. and NATO forces. Also, Azerbaijan plays an important role in the Northern Distribution Network, a supply route to Afghanistan by making available its ground and Caspian naval transportation facilities. Additionally, Azerbaijan provides specialized training for Afghan police, border guard officers and de-miners, education and training of Afghan civilian and military medical doctors, and medical treatment of Afghan citizens at Azeri hospitals. Azerbaijan has provided medical equipment and supplies to Afghanistan as well as assisting in the construction of schools and hospitals there. Azerbaijan remains a reliable partner of NATO and the EU in the South Caucuses through its consistent and effective contribution to common goals and objectives. Azerbaijan is also an active partner of the United States in efforts regarding the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction through its participation in programs such as Caspian Guard and Cooperative Threat Reduction. On July 5, 2011, an Azerbaijani aircraft flying a support mission for NATO troops crashed as it descended into Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. While it is my understanding that investigations are ongoing, it has come to my attention that one leading theory is that Taliban fighters may have shot down the aircraft as it made its final approach. While we await further information on exactly what happened that night in Afghanistan, it is important that we recognize the loss of life of the nine crew members on board that flight who made the ultimate sacrifice. While we can take comfort knowing that we are not alone in this fight, we must also make sure we comfort those who make sacrifices alongside us. It is with a heavy heart that I offer my thanks and appreciation to the family, friends, and countrymen to those crew members of Silk Way Airlines IL-76. The world is a safer place due to their commitment to support and supply our troops and allies in their hunt for those seeking to harm peace-loving people around the world.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the winners of the ``Consider the Possibilities'' Personal Achievement award from the HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Altoona, given to encourage and reward personal achievement within its community. HealthSouth has presented rehabilitation awards to members of their community who have remained steadfast in overcoming an illness or disability. This year I congratulate: Danielle Gibbons and Frank Germino, winners of the ``Consider the Possibilities'' Personal Achievement Award; and Shelly Beaver, Sherri McGregor, and Joe Reed, winners of the Advocate Award. Danielle Gibbons is the winner of the HealthSouth ``Consider the Possibilities'' Personal Achievement Award. On June 18, 2010, Danielle, 37 years old at the time and a single mother of two, was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Danielle was driving when another vehicle crossed the center line and hit her head on. The other driver was killed and Danielle was left with life threatening injuries. Danielle had to be cut out of the car, and was transported to the hospital where surgeons were ready to amputate her right leg. Instead, she insisted that she be flown to Pittsburgh where she underwent nine surgeries in order to keep her right leg. In October 2010, Danielle began physical therapy and she made remarkable progress. In less than one year, she was ambulating independently. Danielle has returned to work full time as a nurse practitioner. I commend her for her perseverance and good attitude. Frank Germino is also the recipient of the HealthSouth ``Consider the Possibilities'' Personal Achievement Award. On October 9, 2010, Frank's life was changed forever when he fell 12 feet from a tree stand while hunting. Frank broke his back in five places. After a five hour surgery, he was told that he would never walk again due to the extensive damage that was incurred. Frank was determined to walk again and after months of rehab and therapy, Frank did just that. His courageous spirit is an inspiration to everyone around him. Shelly Beaver and Sherri McGregor are the recipients of the HealthSouth Advocate Award. Through the efforts of Shelly Beaver, Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist, and Sherri McGregor, Education and Training Specialist at Penn State Altoona, ``Sense- ational Endeavors'' was developed. The program creates a combination of sensory activities, physical movement, and social skill development. In addition to therapeutic programs, campers engage in recreational activities and exercise tailored to their ability. Both Shelly and Sherri have dedicated their lives to enriching the lives of countless children. Joe Reed is also the recipient of the HealthSouth Advocate Award. Joe is responsible for bringing a Miracle League to Blair County. The Miracle League provides baseball for all children with special needs. The field is constructed using a cushioned rubber surface with everything flat and level so there is nothing to trip over. Joe first heard about the Miracle League during a trip to Moody, Alabama while visiting friends in the fall of 2003. About two weeks later he read about it in the Kiwanis Magazine and knew this was something that Blair County needed. He returned to the Moody field, and then went to see the original Miracle League field in Conyers, Georgia. There, he met with the Executive Director of the Miracle League Association, Diane Alford. After getting permission to use the land owned by the Kiwanis Club of Eldorado, he assembled a Board of Directors in early 2004 and began fundraising and promotion. Joe raised over $150,000. Construction began in the fall of 2006. The total cost of the project was $497,000. Opening day was July 21, 2007 with 24 children. Today they have 125 players and over 175 volunteers. Congratulations to Danielle, Frank, Shelly, Sherri, and Joe. Their accomplishments are a testament to us all that with hard work, persistence, and a big heart, we can overcome any hardship. I congratulate each of them on their perseverance, and I wish them the best as they continue to overcome illnesses and disabilities while setting an example for the rest of the community.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Where was the outrage when they passed the stimulus bill, as the chairman pointed out, that only 60-some billion dollars went to the highways and infrastructure of this country? That's when the outrage should have been put forth. Where was the outrage on that side? There were more than just one of you over there. You should have stood up and you should have said right then and right there, as I did to the former chairman, I said, This is going to mess up a long-range highway bill. They're going to take that money and they're going to squander it. We could have done half of a stimulus bill, put most of the money into the infrastructure of this country, and we wouldn't be sitting here today hearing this outrage on the House floor. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SHUSTER. Let's move forward with a bill that's within our means. Once again, I want to remind my friends on the other side, you had both bodies and the White House for 2 years. Where was the bill? There was no bill. Where were the jobs? There are no jobs. I just would remind my colleagues we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar this government spends. We've got to live within our means. And I'm willing to suggest that the bill that the chairman and our side is crafting is going to streamline this. We do have less money. There's no doubt about it. I'd like to see more money. We've got to find different revenue sources. But taxing the American people in economic downtime is not the right time to do it. We can take that $230 billion or $240 billion going into the trust fund and by streamlining and by taking all of these other programs that don't do anything to rebuild our roads and increase our capacity, take them off the table and let's focus on what we need to do, and that's build roads and bridges in this country. So, again, I remind my colleagues, let's direct the outrage where it's due, and that's in a failed stimulus bill. Again, I do rise today to support H.R. 2887, the surface and air transportation program. It's a clean extension for 3 months and 6 months. I think it's extremely important that this moves forward so that we don't stop the important bridge and road jobs and, of course, the safety programs and commerce that moves safely through the air. I think that's extremely important. So again, I intended to stand up and speak more about these two bills, but again, when I hear this outrage, I want to make sure that there is outrage on our side about what's happened in this Congress over the last 4 years.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Benzel's Bakery of Altoona, PA. This year, Benzel's is celebrating its 100th year in business. In 1911, Adolph Benzel came to America with a recipe and a dream to make pretzels. The company started off as a one-man operation, everything done by hand. Today this family business is one of the top pretzel producers in the country. Benzel's employs 70 full time workers and makes 35 varieties of pretzels under the brand name Pennysticks Pretzels. The company gives back to the community. They have established a fund with the Central Pennsylvania Community Foundation in honor of Adolph Benzel. The company has also donated $150,000 for a renovation project at a local theatre. I extend my congratulations to Benzel's Bretzel Bakery and expect another hundred years from this great family business.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to recognize the Borough of Hollidaysburg upon the 175th anniversary of its founding. I, along with close to 6,000 of my constituents am proud to call Hollidaysburg home and I am pleased to have the opportunity to call attention to the borough and its history in the House today. Hollidaysburg, like so many other boroughs in Pennsylvania, has a rich history that stretches back before the founding of our nation to the French and Indian War. Hollidaysburg was first settled in the early 1700's by brothers Adam and William Holliday after their purchase of 1,000 acres of land along the Juniata River from the decendents of William Penn. As with many small settlements of the time, the community forged from the wilderness by the Holliday family remained small throughout the Revolutionary War and the first few years of America's founding. However, as America began to expand and look west, the population began to grow as important transportation projects like the Huntingdon, Cambria, and Indiana Turnpike were completed. In 1832, Hollidaysburg underwent a second population boom when the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal opened, giving merchants in the area a way to move their products to Philadelphia and other eastern markets. Two years later, the Allegheny Portage Railroad solidified Hollidaysburg as a center for trade by linking the canal to a railroad connecting Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Later, at the dawn of the Twentieth Century, the Pennsylvania Railroad established a large switching yard at Hollidaysburg; further solidifying the borough's important role as a link in America's growing railroad infrastructure. This rapid development in transportation around Hollidaysburg enabled the borough to officially charter itself in 1836. Within a few years, the population surged again, to a record number of 2,000 inhabitants by 1840. The borough's growth in such a short time enabled it to become the seat of Blair County and remains a center of commerce and local government to this day. I might add to that list, innovation since Hollidaysburg is the home of the renowned and ageless toy, the Slinky. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the borough of Hollidaysburg for 175 years of history, growth and success. Hollidaysburg continues to boast a vibrant community in a beautiful area of Pennsylvania and I invite the American people to help celebrate its anniversary by visiting the borough to experience all it has to offer first hand.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chair, it's important that we pass this on a bipartisan basis because it does mean jobs for Americans, construction jobs, somewhere up around 20,000. It means steel that is going to be made in U.S. steel plants. So this is a bill that is not only going to create jobs, but it's going to help us break that dependence on foreign oil. Again, I tip my hat to Mr. Terry from Nebraska for putting forth H.R. 1938, and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this pro-energy, pro-jobs bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. SHUSTER. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHUSTER. Did I hear correctly that the gentleman is going to support the underlying legislation?

Mr. SHUSTER. I thought so. But I guess I wasn't paying attention to the end. So it is great to hear.

Mr. SHUSTER. I claim time in support of the bill on behalf of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act. As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, I appreciate the hard work of my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and of my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee to bring this bill forward, with whom our committees share jurisdiction. This important legislation directs the President to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. This important project has been delayed for far too long, and as my colleague from Nebraska pointed out, it is one month away from its 3-year anniversary from its introduction. The time has come for the President to finally move forward and make a decision. This legislation doesn't force the President to make a ``yes'' or ``no'' decision, but it does require the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline no later than November 1, 2011. This $7 billion, 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline would link Canada's tar sands region with refineries in the Midwest and Texas. The economic impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline are immense, with estimates of 465,000 U.S. jobs stemming from the oil sands development by the year 2035. All of my colleagues talk on the House floor about taking action to limit our dependence on oil from unstable areas of the world and from foreign governments hostile to the United States' interests. This is a project that will move us in that direction. Accomplishing that goal will also grow our economy in our partnering with our close friend and ally, Canada. The United States has the largest network of energy pipelines of any nation in the world, and the pipelines remain the energy lifelines that power nearly all of our daily activities. The hallmark of America's pipeline network continues to be that it delivers extraordinary volumes of product reliably, safely, efficiently, and economically. Since 1986, the volume of energy products transported through pipelines has increased by one-third; yet the number of reportable incidents has decreased by 28 percent. Both government and industry have taken numerous steps to improve pipeline safety over the last 10 years. Safety advocates, environmentalists and the pipeline industry all agree that the Federal pipeline safety program is working. Later this summer, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will bring a bill to the floor to reauthorize the Federal pipeline safety program. We will work with our colleagues from the Energy and Commerce Committee, as we bring our bill to the floor, to ensure that safety remains our top priority. That piece of legislation will ensure that pipelines, like the Keystone XL pipeline, will continue to be the safest and most efficient way to move petroleum products and natural gas. I am concerned by what appears to be a bias by some in this body to nontraditional sources of energy. To end our reliance on oil from overseas, we must develop the resources we have available in North America. That includes the oil sands in Canada and the Marcellus shale natural gas in my home State of Pennsylvania. We must ensure that the development of these resources is done responsibly and in an environmentally safe manner, but we cannot hold them back and show prejudice just because they are unconventional. We simply can't have it both ways. We can't grow our economy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil without developing the resources that are available right here in our own backyard. So in closing, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1938, and I look forward to continuing to work on this important issue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The time for talk is over. The time for action has come. We are in a spending-driven debt crisis. Washington is spending money it doesn't have, and it's leaving the American people, our children and our grandchildren, with the tab. The national debt now stands at $14 trillion, which is equal to 95 percent of the economy of the United States. In his first 2 years in office, President Obama has added more to our national debt than was added between 1776 and 1992, totaling close to $4 trillion in new debt in less than 36 months. We are now borrowing 40 cents on every dollar. I was a small business owner before I came to Congress, and if I borrowed 40 cents on every dollar, my business would have been out of business. American families know that if they're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, it's not long before they're in crisis. President Obama inherited an economy in distress. There's no denying that. However, practically every decision he has made and every policy he has pursued has made matters worse. Between a failed trillion-dollar stimulus and a trillion-dollar government takeover of health care, this administration has spent without restraint and without regard to our financial health. If spending is the problem, then controlling Washington spending is the solution. My colleagues stand on the House floor and talk about increasing revenues by raising taxes, but history tells us a different story. We can raise revenues by lowering tax rates. President Kennedy did it in the sixties, President Reagan did it in the eighties, and even President Bush in 2000 when he lowered tax rates. What happened was not a decrease in revenues to the Federal Government but an increase. In fact, in 2000, after the 2001, '2 and '3 tax cuts, we had record revenues in the Federal Government. Our problem is spending. That's why I joined my colleagues in voting to pass Cut, Cap, and Balance. My passing this legislation, the House stepped in and filled the vacuum of leadership left by the President of the United States in the debt limit negotiations. We acted to cut spending by over $110 billion, cap the growth of spending, and force Congress to balance its books through a constitutional balanced budget amendment. No one wants the United States to default on its debt. The consequences would be dire, not only for our economy but for the world. However, we cannot continue down the path that has led us to this crisis. The House has acted. It's time for the President to step in and act as well.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. The EPA, along with other Federal agencies, continues to grab for more authority, overriding long-standing State policies and roles in regulating oil and gas exploration and environmental protection, in particular States such as Pennsylvania, with long- standing and respected programs. The EPA needs to back off. Pennsylvania issues are completely different than Texas issues, and no one knows Pennsylvania or wants to protect Pennsylvania better than the State agencies working to protect it. I strongly support H.R. 2018 and, again, congratulate Mr. Gibbs on a job well done on this legislation. The General Assembly of Pennsylvania--House Resolution No. 87 a resolution Urging the Environmental Protection Agency to stop its unlawful application of the Guidance Memo relating to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which is a substantive change to the permitting procedure conferred on the states, and restore the regulatory environment that existed prior to the release of the Guidance Memo. Whereas, Under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (62 Stat. 1155, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are typically issued by states for discharge of nondredged and nonfill material; and Whereas, Once the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves a state permitting program, the state has exclusive authority to issue NPDES permits; and Whereas, Through a 1991 Memorandum of Agreement executed between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the EPA, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was identified as the lead agency with exclusive authority for administering and granting NPDES permits for mining-related activities in this Commonwealth; and Whereas, In September 2010, the EPA informed the DEP that it was altering the Commonwealth's administration of its permitting program and would conduct its own additional review of NPDES permits; and Whereas, This abrupt change in the Commonwealth's permitting process was not the result of any accompanying Federal statutory or regulatory changes; and Whereas, As a result of this change, the DEP is required to provide the EPA's Region 3 field office with all pending mining-related NPDES permit applications, whose activity will either discharge into the Monongahela River or into any designated total maximum daily load impaired stream for its independent review; and Whereas, The EPA's Region 3 field office is not sufficiently staffed to perform these types of reviews in a timely manner, causing indefinite delays in the permitting process; and Whereas, The EPA's objections to the issuance of these permit applications vary, but generally are based on what the Federal agency perceives are inconsistencies between the applications and an interim final Guidance Memo that the EPA released in April 2010, designed to provide a framework for regional reviews of surface mining projects in Appalachia based on conductivity levels it associated with adverse impacts to streams; and Whereas, Although the stated intent of the Guidance Memo is to limit its applicability to surface mining projects only, a number of the permits being delayed in this Commonwealth are for activities other than this type of mining; and Whereas, The Guidance Memo is based on flawed studies with limited application and unconfirmed conclusions that cannot be used to develop a predictive cause and effect relationship between the EPA's established benchmark threshold for conductivity levels and healthy streams in this Commonwealth; and Whereas, Despite the representation that the Guidance Memo is an interim document, it nevertheless is applied by the EPA in a binding manner in its current version, even though the EPA continues to receive comments on it; and Whereas, The EPA's application of the Guidance Memo constitutes a substantive change in the basic application of the permitting process; and Whereas, By substituting the issuance of agency guidance for formal rulemaking, the EPA circumvents the clear requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (60 Stat. 237, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) for public notice and comments; and Whereas, This unnecessary extended review of NPDES permit applications by the EPA has led to a significant backlog of permits that could result in coal contracts being lost, mining jobs being destroyed and this Commonwealth losing its major source of affordable and reliable electric generation; Therefore be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania urge the Environmental Protection Agency to stop its unlawful application of the Guidance Memo relating to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which is a substantive change to the permitting procedure conferred on the states, and restore the regulatory environment that existed prior to the release of the Guidance Memo; be it further Resolved, That the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reassert its rightful role as the sole agency with permitting authority of mining-related National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives transmit a copy of this resolution to the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator and all members of the Pennsylvania Congressional Delegation.

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. As a member of the Water Subcommittee and cosponsor of this bill, I applaud Chairman Mica, Chairman Gibbs, and Ranking Member Rahall for bringing forward this important bipartisan legislation. H.R. 2018 seeks to reverse the erosion of the States' authority and partnership with the Federal Government under the Clean Water Act. This well-established and effective partnership has come under increasing attack by the EPA under the Obama administration, and the EPA has progressively undermined the States' shared regulatory authority. Our bill preserves the system of cooperative federalism established under the Clean Water Act, and in which the primary responsibilities for water pollution control are allocated to the States. The bill restrict's EPA's ability to second-guess or delay a State's permitting in water quality certification decisions under the CWA once the EPA has already approved a State's program. We must put an end to the EPA's one-size-fits-all, and the economy stifling agenda. This bill ensures a commonsense regulatory regime that protects our environment while at the same time protecting our Nation's farmers, miners, and other businesses critical to our economy. This bill addresses one of the many areas in which the EPA has overstepped its authority and taken actions that are deeply hurtful to our economy. In my State of Pennsylvania, the EPA has increased its interference with the Commonwealth to unprecedented levels, creating numerous delays and problems for the Commonwealth and our Department of Environmental Protection, with no scientific basis or environmental payoff. I received copies of numerous letters from the Pennsylvania DEP Secretary Krancer to the EPA citing EPA's interference and unwillingness to collaborate with the State on the issues that they have led on for three decades. The first example is regarding the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or the NPDES, permits, which has been a problem with several States in addition to Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania DEP has had the primary authority over the NPDES permitting program since 1984, and the EPA has just recently started to interfere in the Pennsylvania program, specifically in mining-related permits. The EPA has specifically increased their permit review of mining- related permits under a new guidance, which relies on unsettled science. This is causing long delays in the permitting process with no environmental benefit and is costing Pennsylvania jobs and economic benefits. The Pennsylvania House of Representatives recently passed a resolution stating the EPA is overstepping DEP without any Federal legislative or regulatory changes to support this increased oversight. This resolution reasserts Pennsylvania's primary role over the NPDES permitting in the State. The EPA has refused to work with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on Chesapeake Bay issues to address several problems with the EPA's model that do not accurately reflect Pennsylvania's unique issues. A letter from Secretary Krancer to Lisa Jackson states, ``PA DEP and our municipality stakeholders have been frustrated with EPA's continued failure to acknowledge the challenge of Pennsylvania's unique municipal structure. Pennsylvania does not agree the TMDL development effort has been collaborative.'' Again, there was an EPA letter to the DEP citing DEP's concerns with the State's handling of wastewater for the Marcellus drilling, excessively overstepping the DEP, criticizing their approach, and demanding to direct Pennsylvania's sampling and monitoring programs. It seems the EPA is listening more to The New York Times than the State regulatory agencies that are actually regulating and monitoring the issues on the ground.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I would like to place in the record my understanding that the definition of ``covered business method patent,'' Section 18(d)(1) of H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, is intended to be narrowly construed to target only those business method patents that are unique to the financial services industry in the sense that they are patents which only a financial services provider would use to furnish a financial product or service. The example that I have been given is a patent relating to electronic check scanning, which is the type of invention that only the financial services industry would utilize as a means of providing improved or more efficient banking services. In contrast, Section 18 would not encompass a patent that can be used in other industries, but which a financial services provider might also use. Lastly, it is also my understanding from discussions with the Committee that Section 18 is targeted only towards patents for non-technological inventions.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. We on this side of the aisle do stand with small business; but this is an arbitrary amendment, sets up arbitrary mileage, dollar amounts that is not going to get at the heart of the problem. I agree with the ranking member that the big boys, one-size-fits-all doesn't always work. But we have to figure out a process and put it in place that is going to streamline the process for small business, not set up, as I said, arbitrary mileage and dollar amounts that are going to, I believe, hurt small business. There will be small businesses that are outside that 60-mile area that can't come in and compete. And when you reduce competition, you drive up costs. We want to see competition. This amendment, there is no waiver in it to provisions or any consideration for special needs for the DOD, including urgency of mission or direct support to the warfighter. It adds additional steps in the contracting process. It requires the DOD to devote additional time and resources to monitoring contracts, once again driving up costs and the complexity. In addition, contractors must devote additional time to comply with the requirements and expand resources on reporting compliance, driving costs further up on these costs. This is not going to, again, help small businesses. I believe it's going to hurt them. The requirements work against established business practices and programs and will not garner additional benefits to small business, again, driving up costs, stopping small businesses that are 61 or 62 miles outside of that circle. Drives away competition and hurts those folks that could compete that are small businesses. But I agree with what the ranking member said, and in principle with the gentleman from California. We have got to put processes in place that support small businesses. And I intend to work with the committee, with other members of the committee to try to figure out how we put those in place in a reasonable and sound way that drive costs down and allows our small businesses to participate in the process.