[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11212-11215]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  JOBS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to have an important discussion 
that we should focus on, I believe, here in the House, in the Senate, 
and in the White House. That is a discussion focusing on jobs. We need 
to get America back to work. We have been focusing now on this side of 
the aisle, in our committee work, day after day after day to present 
proposals. We've moved them. We've adopted them here in the House. The 
focus is on policies that are going to promote the private sector, that 
are going to promote the development of an environment where people 
will take the risk and become job creators and put people back to work 
here in America.
  I talk often in my office back in the district, as I go out to town 
hall meetings and have conversations with people as I go down the 
street to our local supermarket and to our local stores. I focus on 
four areas that we need to adopt legislation on here in Washington, 
D.C., or repeal legislation on in Washington, D.C., that will create an 
environment where jobs will be created for generations to come.
  The first and probably the most appropriate and important focus that 
we should be spending time on today is the question of getting our 
fiscal house in order. We have had a lot of debate over the last few 
months, weeks, about this debt ceiling that's coming to roost and the 
vote that we're going to have to take here in the House, I would 
imagine. One of the reasons why that issue is so critical to us at this 
point in time is we need to demonstrate to the world that America is 
going to get its fiscal house in order once and for all so that our 
markets recognize that we are serious about this issue, that we 
recognize that $14 trillion of national debt is just not sustainable 
and that it really will destroy America as we know it, and, more 
importantly, what it will do when we send a message. If we can adopt a 
policy here out of Washington, D.C., that deals with the debt ceiling 
but fundamentally deals with the underlying debt, it will send a 
message that the American market is something that you can invest in 
again, around the world, that foreign investors, domestic investors, 
will have the confidence and the certainty that America is a place to 
invest your dollars, your foreign currency, to create the new 
environment, the new marketplaces, the new facilities, the new 
manufacturers, the new industrial base to put people back to work 
again.

                              {time}  1930

  I am extremely confident that we here in the House of 
Representatives, and particularly on our side of the aisle, can come to 
a reasonable solution to this debt ceiling issue and do it in such a 
way that takes care of the debt ceiling crisis but that also takes care 
of the underlying debt crisis that put us into this situation and will 
continue to put us in this situation unless we get serious and deal 
with it now. This is the time. This is the moment. And that will send 
that indication to the world that America is strong, and we can invest 
here and put people back to work.
  The second thing that I tell people as I go around and I talk to them 
in my district and I talk to people on the street and see them as we go 
down the road is that what we need to do in Washington, D.C., is to set 
the agenda out of the House that will create an environment where 
regulations out of Washington, D.C., are cut, are repealed, are 
streamlined, so the bureaucratic red tape that our job creators, that 
the private sector in America faces day in and day out--as a private 
business owner myself before I came to this Chamber, starting and 
opening four businesses, I can tell you, as I went through employing 
people and taking the responsibility and taking the risk of putting my 
capital on the line, putting my family on the line for all the time and 
the resources that we committed into it, the bureaucracy that I dealt 
with in creating those businesses and putting those people back to work 
was mind-boggling.
  I talk to business owners all across America and people that want to 
go out and start their own businesses, and what they tell me is all I 
want to do is manufacture my widget, all I want to do is go out and 
provide the service that I enjoy doing, that I have made my career or 
my passion in life. But yet what I find myself doing when I go down 
this path is complying with paperwork, complying with regulations, 
spending hours upon hours--not innovating, not creating new technology, 
not figuring out a better way to deliver services at a better price and 
in a better fashion or creating a new widget or creating a new product 
in a more efficient manner. I spend hours filling out paperwork to 
comply with regulations coming out of Washington, D.C., and out of my 
State capitol.
  And I will tell you, that resonates with me. That's why we need a 
policy here in Washington, D.C., that calls upon every regulatory body 
in Washington to look at the impacts of their regulations from an 
economic point of view, how it's going to impact that creation, that 
innovation of the private sector in a negative way, and balance that in 
relationship to what the goal of the regulation is.
  And sometimes those goals are very good. A lot of our environmental 
laws are reasonable and regulations are reasonable, but they take a 
balanced approach to accomplishing what we all want--clean air, clean 
water, a clean environment to pass on to our kids and to the next 
generation.
  But at the same time, we can't do it without recognizing that if we 
kill the American way of life, that there will be no America for our 
children to enjoy. So we have to have a commonsense, balanced, 
reasonable approach to this government and this regulatory expansion 
that's coming out of Washington that needs to be crippled and needs to 
be cut and needs to be repealed.
  So I have focused a lot of my effort--and a lot of my colleagues have 
spent a lot of time--talking about and implementing legislation that 
will cut the agency's ability to promulgate those regulations that will 
destroy America unless they're reined in. So we need to focus on that 
second point.
  The third point, I have talked to so many folks about our Tax Code 
until I'm blue in the face. As a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, I can tell you that going through the 70,000 pages plus of 
the Tax Code and the tax regulations is mind-numbing. And the problem 
is that we're forcing all Americans to try to comply with that Code. We 
have talked about this.
  Since we took the majority, since I came here in November as an 
elected new Member of Congress, I have spent a tremendous amount of 
time trying to advocate for comprehensive tax reform that will 
streamline the Code, make it much more competitive, bring down the 
corporate rates and the individual rates to a point, with the pass-
through entities that have to be taken care of, so that we are 
competitive on the world stage in dealing with our Tax Code.
  I was glad to see the President the other day talking about, in this 
debt ceiling debate, how he was targeting some loopholes and exemptions 
and the corporate jets. Like we're here on the

[[Page 11213]]

Republican side, we came to Congress, we left our families, we left our 
businesses because we want to protect corporate jets. Come on. That's 
not being honest with the American people. We have been talking about 
comprehensive tax reform from day one. We're ready to go. I'm glad the 
President now has conceded that that's where we have to go and that's 
part of the debt ceiling conversation, and it needs to be.
  So the bottom line is is we make that Tax Code more competitive. We 
streamline it so honest, hardworking Americans can comply with it, and 
we revamp the Code, reform the Code in such a way that it's a 
competitive Tax Code that doesn't excessively burden those in the 
private sector and all taxpayers across America with that tax burden 
that's just going to kill America if we don't get this spending under 
control, which those revenues from the Tax Code go to take care of.
  The fourth point that I stress to people as I go around and I talk to 
them is that we need a domestic-orientated energy policy that taps into 
our energy in such a way that it's comprehensive, it is an all-of-the-
above approach. And what I mean by that is, when I was the Mayor of the 
City of Corning and we would have people coming in and talking to us 
about siting a new facility or a new manufacturing base or a new 
operation, there was always the part of the conversation that we got to 
that was, Okay, why should I invest in the City of Corning in the State 
of New York? What are your tax rates? What is the tax burden I'm 
looking at? What are the insurance costs that I'm going to have to pick 
up by coming to the State of New York, the City of Corning?
  The other issue that was repeatedly discussed in the top three of 
those conversations was, what are your utility costs? What is the cost 
to me, for producing this new product or this new technology going to 
run me? And that's where, if we have a comprehensive energy policy 
focused on domestic supplies of energy, not only will we be taking care 
of a national security issue with having these supplies of energy being 
produced from domestic sources of things such as natural gas from the 
Marcellus shale, or Utica shale in my part of the State, or shell 
formations and tight sand formations all across America, but we have 
oil supplies that have been identified and are available to us. If we 
just unleash those resources, we have to say we go after these energy 
sources in a clean, responsible manner, environmentally safe.
  And everybody I talk to supports that on our side of the aisle. No 
one here is going to destroy the environment for the sake of getting 
energy out of the ground, for the sake of hurting our children or our 
grandchildren. That's not what we stand for. But we stand for focusing 
on those energy supplies that are here and promote those energy 
supplies so that we have a source of energy that's dependable, that 
will provide us with long-term, low-cost sources of energy supplies to 
our manufacturing and industrial bases and reignite America again so 
that we become a powerhouse in the area of employment and put our 
people back to work.
  So those are four key principles that we bring to the table. And one 
additional piece that I'd like to talk about tonight that is ripe and 
ready for us to take is the expansion of opportunities of our exports.
  We have three free trade agreements that are ready to go. We have 
South Korea; we have Colombia; we have Panama. They have been 
negotiated. There has been a long history, many years of going back and 
forth with these countries and asking these countries to engage in 
honest negotiations that deal with all the issues that you deal with 
when you enter into a free trade agreement. And both parties--we as the 
United States of America, the Governments of South Korea, Colombia, and 
Panama--have come to the table in good faith, and we have finally 
gotten to the point where we are ready to move on these agreements. All 
the issues have been negotiated. All the issues of the free trade 
agreements have been taken care of. Now, I know there is an issue in 
Washington, D.C., that we're still dealing with when it comes to trade 
adjustment assistance, but, fundamentally, the free trade agreements 
have been negotiated and worked out with these countries, and we're 
ready to go.
  But what are we doing? We're waiting on the White House to send them 
up here. We're waiting on the President, who set, in his State of the 
Union message, a goal of doubling our exports. A great goal. I applaud 
the goal. But in order to double our exports out of America, we've got 
to create an environment in which the private sector flourishes, such 
as those four points, and focus on those four points that I just talked 
about. But we also have to expand the markets upon which those new 
products and our existing products can be sold to so that we can 
increase and meet that export goal. That's why I supported the free 
trade agreements when I came to Congress and as I went out on the 
campaign trail.

                              {time}  1940

  We have three great agreements that are ready to move, be moved, and 
ready to be voted on, and I think have strong support on both sides of 
the aisle. Under the President's own numbers, these three agreements 
are looking to create at least 250,000 jobs. This is coming out of his 
administration. The agencies under his control are projecting that 
these agreements will provide opportunities for at least 250,000 new 
jobs. To me, this is a no-brainer. We shouldn't be haggling back and 
forth and trying to figure out what's holding these agreements up, 
ready for a vote. These countries have negotiated with us in good 
faith. We've had those hard negotiations, and now we're ready to go. 
The President even mentioned the other day on TV when I was watching 
some news reports that he wants to move forward on these agreements, 
but yet he hasn't sent them up to the Congress, as he's required to do 
by our laws, in order to get them implemented.
  I think it's troublesome when you hear the President talk about 
setting a goal of increasing exports by 50 percent and say to the 
public that he is committed to these free trade agreements and that all 
Congress has to do is pass them, but yet when you look at the details, 
all he has to do is send it up to Congress, and we'll take care of it. 
But he hasn't taken the step necessary to do that, and that is solely 
under his control to do.
  So I call upon the President: Send these free trade agreements up. 
We're ready to go. We have support. Let's open up the South Korean 
markets. Let's open up the Colombian market. Let's open up the Panama 
markets. Let's give our people in America the benefits of these new 
export opportunities that each of these countries represents.
  I come from a part of the State of New York where we have a lot of 
wine, grape growers, wine producers, apple growers. And I will tell 
you, in the agricultural area, this is going to be a great asset in 
particular. These markets will represent new sources of opportunity to 
farmers who have been plowing and working this land for generations. 
Yet we here in Washington, D.C., just cannot figure out how to get this 
done because the President won't send it up for us to get the process 
taken care of. So I call upon the President to move on these free trade 
agreements as soon as possible. He's indicated to the American public 
his support for them. He indicates that he's ready to pass them and 
sign them. And I'll just tell you, I'm here to call him out on it and 
say, We need to do it. Let's do it.
  One other thing I wanted to talk about tonight is kind of my concern 
about the whole issue of this debt ceiling debate and where we're going 
with it. And I'll tell you, I am greatly concerned about the political 
rhetoric that we seem now to be committed to. I see us in Washington, 
D.C., going down a path where we're talking about situations where 
we're going to hold back Social Security checks, we're going to hold 
back payments for funding our troops, and I just don't see how that's 
productive.
  What we have is a debt problem. We have clearly articulated a plan on 
this

[[Page 11214]]

side of the aisle. We have come up with budgets that we've passed out 
of this House. We have put down on paper proposals of where cuts could 
be made. We went through the whole process of H.R. 1 back and forth for 
7 days, with an open debate on the floor of the House in front of the 
American people, identifying areas that could be cut and that could be 
streamlined, and we laid out our plan. It's in black and white. But 
today, I still don't know where the President of the United States is.
  I hear a lot of news reports about some type of position that the 
President has taken on $4 trillion, and it supposedly has $3 trillion 
worth of cuts and $1 trillion worth of tax increases. I've never seen 
that. Actually, I've heard discussions that have cited sources in the 
White House or sources off the Hill that show the package having $3 
trillion of tax increases with only $1 trillion worth of cuts. Now, I 
don't know if that's the case, because I don't know what the 
President's really standing for because I have never seen it in black 
and white. But what I would ask is that the President put it on a piece 
of paper, because if he's asking me as a Member of Congress to support 
debt ceiling relief in exchange for $3 trillion worth of new taxes, I'm 
not going to do that because that taxes everybody in America, every man 
and woman and business in America. It violates a campaign pledge made 
by the President in his campaign where he would not raise taxes on the 
middle class. So I want to see what he's proposing.
  I am greatly concerned that we're also at the point where we need to 
have this conversation in front of the American people. We need to have 
the American people weigh in on what the detailed proposal is. You 
know, we've been very transparent; we've been very open--we here in the 
House, especially on this side of the aisle. The House Republicans have 
put the budget out, have gone through H.R. 1, have put documents out 
that have been scored by the CBO as to what impact they'll have 
financially. But we haven't seen anything from the President. And the 
American people deserve the opportunity to know where the President is 
at in these discussions.
  What we cannot do, we cannot get to the 11th hour and say, Here it 
is, America. Take it or leave it. That's just not right. That's just 
not responsible governing. What we need to do is have a thoughtful, 
honest debate back and forth with our positions.
  Mr. President, you said the other day, Don't call my bluff. I'm going 
to go to the American people.
  I tell you, Go to the American people.
  I want to go to the American people. I came to Congress to have this 
discussion in the open, in front of the world, because it's time. We 
need to. And until we see a plan, we can't have that honest debate that 
our forefathers, our Founding Fathers, and so many have sacrificed to 
give us, the transparency of democracy, the transparency to come to 
this Chamber that is filled with so much history and have the debate.
  Go to the Senate floor and go into the living rooms of the American 
public and say, This is what we're talking about. This is what we're 
fighting about.
  Now I am ready to have that debate. I'm ready to have that 
conversation, and I know at the end of the day where I will come out. I 
will stand for a product that gets this Nation taken care of for 
generations because its fiscal house is, once and for all, taken care 
of. If that means we have to compromise, we'll compromise, but let's 
have it. We can only compromise upon which we know. That is why it is 
so important that the President come forth in written fashion with his 
proposal.
  I sent a letter to the White House today with many of my colleagues 
in the freshman class, of which I am a proud member, calling upon him 
to do that, and hopefully he will do that. My intent is to go down 
there physically next week with, hopefully, numerous other members of 
the freshman class and stand in front of the White House and say, Hey, 
we're new Members of Congress. We're here to have the conversation. 
We're ready to act. Give us what you stand for. Put in black and white 
what you stand for and what your position is, and let's debate. We're 
ready to go.
  So the bottom line is that as we go down this path through this debt 
ceiling crisis--and we do have two crises. We have the debt ceiling 
crisis that everyone knows about, August 2, but we have the underlying 
debt crisis that causes us to have this debt ceiling problem that we 
now face. We have to take care of both because--make no mistake about 
it--if we just do a simple raise the debt ceiling or something gimmicky 
that gets us through that August 2 or whatever the final date shall be 
and if we do it in such a way that there's really no meat on the bone 
and there is no substance to the proposal--make no mistake about it--
the world markets are going to look right through that and see right 
through it, and they're going to say, You guys are not serious about 
this $14 trillion worth of debt. You guys in America are not serious 
about getting $1.6 trillion of annual budget deficits under control.

                              {time}  1950

  Do you know what? We have an obligation now to advise all of those 
members of the world who are going to invest in America that this is 
not that AAA rating that we have all enjoyed since 1917, I believe. 
That America will be downgraded on its debt regardless if we default or 
not because we have not taken the moment; we have not seized the moment 
to be honest with the American people and with the world and said we're 
going to get it taken care of.
  That's where I am at. I am ready to get it taken care of. That's what 
I came to Washington, D.C., to do. That's what I know many of my fellow 
colleagues in the freshman class came to Washington, D.C., to do. We 
don't care about reelection. We don't care about politics. We're 
talking about the substance that will make sure that America is here 
for generations to come.
  A few of my other colleagues had intended to join us this evening, 
but I know we have a tradition here in the House that I am becoming 
aware of with the baseball game that's going on between the Democrats 
and the Republicans. And I think as they attend to that--and that's a 
great tradition, and I applaud my colleagues for taking the time to 
continue on in that tradition--I know I have got another Member 
potentially coming down here, I have been given word.
  I don't stand on these issues alone. I don't stand with these 
comments in a vacuum. I don't stand here today as one man in 435 
Members of Congress who believes in what I am articulating. There is an 
army of people in Washington who are standing with me and with whom I 
am standing who believe the same way: that it is time to get our fiscal 
house in order, that it is time to advance an agenda out of Washington, 
D.C., that once and for all shows a firm commitment to the private 
sector and reins in government so that government does not kill the 
private sector and the dreams of all the Americans that are yet to 
come.
  So I am looking forward to continuing this debate and moving forward 
on the issues that we have talked about. And as we deal with these 
issues, I do it mindful of the situation that we face on a day-to-day 
basis of the politics of Washington, D.C. But I will tell you, even 
though I am aware of those politics, the issues that we are talking 
about today--the issues that we are facing--transcend politics.
  I was pleased today that I was able to get an amendment offered on 
the floor in some of the debates in our appropriations process where I 
reached across the aisle, to a colleague of mine from Buffalo from the 
other side, and we legislated. We adopted policy. We adopted an 
amendment to that appropriations bill that I think is going to be good 
for America. And it showed I think in that instance to me, and I hope 
to many others, that we can work together, that we can work together in 
a bipartisan fashion to tackle the issues that are facing America such 
as that which we took care of today between Mr. Higgins and myself. And 
that philosophy is alive and well.

[[Page 11215]]

  I know the press likes to gin up headlines based on the partisan 
debate that we often have here in the Chamber, and they try to paint us 
all as we are in one camp on the Republican side and they are in the 
other camp on the Democratic side. I can tell you, in living it day to 
day, that truly is not the case. There are many good people on both 
sides of the aisle that are more than willing to sit down and talk to 
each other and try to work out these issues.
  But a lot of times that rhetoric, those headlines, cause us to act in 
ways that are extremely divisive and kill that bipartisan effort and 
support that we should be nurturing and promoting. That's why, today, I 
was pleased to see the results of that effort on our behalf and on Mr. 
Higgins' behalf to pass that legislation.
  So I am going to continue along those avenues. I am going to call out 
and hold people accountable for their positions. There's nothing wrong 
with that. There's nothing wrong with having a good, old-fashioned, 
honest debate and passionately disagreeing with people with different 
philosophies so long as you do it in an honest and respectful manner.
  I work day to day whenever I get into a disagreement with some of my 
colleagues and also Members from the other side of the aisle, and I 
always start with the premise, okay, where are you coming from? Why do 
you believe you are right? And I try to look at it truly from the eyes 
of the people that have the contrary opinion. Many times that has 
opened up my eyes and allowed me to learn from that exchange and 
strengthen my position, maybe cause my position to bend a little bit 
or, as I learn and grow, to maybe change those positions. But I can 
tell you that we should always start by having that conversation.
  I have seen where a lot of times people don't want to do that. They 
don't want to really take the effort, or make the effort, or take the 
time to really try to look at it through the eyes of the other person, 
understand where they're coming from and what their philosophy is 
really all about. I think if we at least do that, if we at least 
promise to each other that we're willing to do that, this Chamber would 
work tremendously much better as a body, as a whole. My colleagues in 
the Senate would also be working in a much better fashion. And as we 
work with the White House and with the President of the United States, 
we could also develop that type of relationship.
  So I encourage all my colleagues and all my friends to continue with 
that effort, as I pledge here today to do. As we go forward, I guess I 
will keep that in heart, and I will continue to do my part in that 
effort.
  As I started this conversation tonight, ladies and gentlemen of 
America and Mr. Speaker, this is about jobs. This is about adopting a 
philosophy, a new culture in America that recognizes that the private 
sector is that engine that's going to be the spark of this economic 
recovery, and we need to focus on that. We need to expand on our 
opportunities that are right before us with these free trade agreements 
when you talk about South Korea, Colombia, and Panama.
  I would ask all my colleagues to always focus on getting Americans 
back to work because, if we do that, we will have a recovery, and we 
will address much of this budget deficit problem because of the 
increased revenue that will come from that expansion of getting people 
back to work and getting that economy going; and we will have a much 
better world upon which to legislate going forward.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________