To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand certain restrictions relating to the overhaul and repair of vessels in foreign shipyards to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

I thank both the ranking member and the chair.

I have so much to say about this very passionate issue. I will quickly say that I have two amendments. One deals with outreach on behalf of small and minority businesses for defense contracts, and I truly believe it is enormously important for the vast number of those businesses; but I really rise today to talk about triple negative breast cancer, which has killed so many women.

I am very, very pleased to say that my amendment, with the Office of

Health within the Department of Defense, will identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for triple negative breast cancer, provide information useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trial design that will enable both triple negative breast cancer patients to be identified in the progression of the disease and also to provide for therapies.

I do this in the loving memory of Yolanda Williams, whose funeral I spoke at last year. She was the daughter of Dr. Lois Moore and the wife of Mr. Williams, and she had two beautiful daughters. This wonderful, caring woman died so quickly because of triple negative breast cancer. Also, in the loving memory of Betty Sommer's daughter, Stacey Michelle Gaecke, she shares her story that she also died from triple negative breast cancer.

I ask for the support of my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment # 91 to H.R. 4310 ``National Defense Authorization Act,'' which would direct the Department of Defense Office of Health to work in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for Triple Negative Breast Cancer, TNBC. In addition, my amendment is intended to result in information useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trials design that will enable both TNBC patients to be identified earlier in the progression of their disease and develop multiple targeted therapies for the disease.

Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.''

I offer this amendment in hopes that through a coordinated effort DOD and NIH can develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer strain.

Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment.

Today, breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease.

Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39% higher death rate from breast cancer than other groups.

African American women are also 12% less likely to survive five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that African American women are disproportionally affected by triple negative breast cancer.

More than 30% of all breast cancer diagnoses in African Americans are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

The Story of Yolanda Williams

Mr. Chair, last year, I spoke at a funeral for Yolanda Williams, one of my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. Yolanda died from her battle with triple negative breast cancer. Like many other women who are diagnosed with this aggressive strain, she did not respond to treatment. Yolanda, wife and mother of two daughters, was only 44 years old.

This strain of breast cancer is not only more aggressive, it is also harder to detect, and more likely to recur than other types. Because triple negative breast cancer is difficult to detect, it often metastasizes to other parts of the body before diagnosis. 70% of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.

Research institutions all over the nation have started to focus on this dangerous strain of breast cancer. In my home city of Houston, Baylor College of Medicine has its best and brightest minds working tirelessly to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer subtype. It is time for the Department of Defense to follow that example and commit additional funding to study the triple negative strain.

I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting women across the nation from this deadly form of breast cancer by supporting my amendment.

(Fast Facts)

Breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among

women in this country.

The survival rate for breast cancer has increased to 90%

for White women but only 78% for African American women.

African American women are more likely to be diagnosed with

larger tumors and more advanced stages of breast cancer.

Triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC, is a term used to

describe breast cancers whose cells do not have estrogen

receptors and progesterone receptors, and do not have an

excess of the HER2 protein on their cell membrane of tumor

cells.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) cells are:

Usually of a higher grade and size;

Onset at a younger age;

More aggressive;

More likely to metastasize.

TNBC also referred to as basal-like, BL, due to their

resemblance to basal layer of epithelial cells.

There is not a formal detailed classification of system of

the subtypes of these cells.

TNBC is in fact a heterogeneous group of cancers; with

varying differences in prognosis and survival rate between

various subtypes. This has led to a lot of confusion amongst

both physicians and patients.

Apart from surgery, cytotoxic chemotherapy is the only

available treatment, targeted molecular treatments while

being investigated are not accepted treatment.

Between 10 17% of female breast cancer patients have the

triple negative subtype.

Triple-negative breast cancer most commonly affect African-

American women, followed by Hispanic women.

African-American women have prevalence TNBC of 26% vs 16%

in non-African American women.

TNBC usually affects women under 50 years of age.

African American women have a prevalence of premenopausal

breast cancer of 26% vs 16% for Non-African American women.

Women with TNBC are 3 times the risk of death than women

with the most common type of breast cancer.

Women with TNBC are more likely to have distance metastases

in the brain and lung and more common subtypes of breast

cancer.

I rise to reluctantly oppose the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On the 10th of June, 2010, the Secretary of the Army, a former member of this body, John McHugh, appointed Kathryn Condon, a former high- ranking senior civilian Army official with a strong management background, the first executive director of the Army National Cemeteries Program. There is every indication that she is qualified and well suited for the post.

The Army created the new position to oversee Arlington National Cemetery and Soldiers Home National Cemetery as a result of the problems that have been discussed by my friend and colleague, Mr. Wittman. In its initial recommendation, the Army did not state that the newly created executive director position should be filled by a military official, and since that time has not provided any rationale stating why a military official would be better suited for this position rather than a civilian with credentials like Ms. Condon's.

This amendment would establish the military chain of command, requiring the executive director of the Army Cemeteries Programs be a commissioned officer, replacing the current civilian in that position. Army oversight over the Cemeteries Program remains very strong by virtue of the fact that Ms. Condon reports directly to the Secretary of the Army. There is every indication today that Ms. Condon has performed her duties in a competent and effective manner. All IG and Advisory Committee reports show that significant progress at Arlington has been made under her leadership. Ms. Condon's status as a civilian does not affect the overall authority of the Army over the program or any aspect of the operations under her care.

I note that the Secretary of the Army, Secretary McHugh, wrote a strong letter of opposition to this amendment for the reasons that I have just addressed, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment if he has any more speakers?

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I do rise in opposition but not in strong opposition because I agree with what the gentleman from Maryland is attempting to do, but I need to oppose it for several reasons.

First, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is designed to strike a balance between the needs of a servicemember and their civilian obligations, and I don't believe that anybody in this body would ever do something that could make life more difficult for them.

The changes to SCRA made by this amendment are worthy of vetting under regular order through the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Currently, real estate protections apply to purchases made before being called to active duty. However, section (A)(3) of the amendment would extend SCRA coverage to real estate purchased at any time, including while on active duty under certain circumstances.

That section alone makes a significant change to a provision that is over 70 years old. And while I don't necessarily oppose such an extension, we need to get the views of the major stakeholders, including the VA and the home mortgage industry.

Secondly, as written, some provisions are open to very wide interpretation. For example, there is a provision that provides a 12- month protection from foreclosure to those who are separated or retired because of a disability and rated by VA as permanently and totally disabled.

Since it's very rare that a servicemember would actually leave the military with a 100 percent rating from the VA and the VA adjudication process, as most of us know, can take months, if not years in some cases, how would this provision be implemented? That is left unclear in this amendment. For example, would a bank be required to give back a foreclosed home if the veteran was found several years later to be rated as totally and permanently disabled?

The amendment also contains a significant increase in penalties for violating SCRA provisions. And again, while I don't necessarily oppose the change, I think we need to hear from the legal community on these provisions.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the ranking member drawing attention to the fact that this is bottled up in the Senate, even though it has passed the House in regards to the extending of the sunset provisions of the SCRA.

I would say that, to confirm our concerns, my staff actually talked with an expert on SCRA who was the author of the 2003 major revisions, and here were some of his concerns:

Nothing mandates that a deployed servicemember give notice of their deployment to the financial institution. Without this information, how will the institution know that the servicemember is now covered by these new protections under SCRA?

The current Web site that financial institutions use to see if somebody is on active duty does not differentiate between deployed and nondeployed, thereby making it extremely difficult for the financial institution to keep track.

What is going to be the duration of the protection for surviving spouses--which is something Mr. Smith just brought up--and disabled veterans? Indefinitely? He says no. But will institutions be discouraged from making loans to servicemembers because of this potential problem?

If we believe that we should expand this protection to mortgages, why not extend the protections to other areas?

These are the types of complex questions that really should be thought out and reviewed by experts in this area under regular order. That is why we have committees in this process.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I believe it says rated by VA. DOD makes a rating when you separate from service, and it says, VA. That is a problem because of the time that it takes for VA to do their rating.

I would say that absolutely, if this were just an extension of SCRA to get past the sunset provisions, we would not have a problem with that. But I know, as any other Member in here, that the last thing we would want to do is to cause a problem for our veterans without thinking through all the potential consequences.

I would note that Mr. Cummings introduced an identical piece of legislation, H.R. 5737, earlier this week, which would give the Committee on Veterans' Affairs an opportunity to review these issues. I would ask the gentleman to give our committee an opportunity to review this proposal in bill form through regular order. I pledge my commitment to work with you to make sure that your concerns are addressed in proper fashion.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether whoever is claiming time to speak on this motion on the Republican side of the aisle is, in fact, opposed to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this instruction.

First of all, whatever your views are on the pipeline coming out of Canada, this is not the place for this issue to be brought up because what this provision would do would be to short-circuit the decisionmaking and mandate approval of the pipeline. It doesn't belong in the transportation bill.

We see this over and over again. Our Republican colleagues like to take bills and then hold them hostage to get what they want. They wanted to get the pipeline approved so they mandated the President had to make a decision within 60 days in a previous bill. The President didn't want it. He said, Okay, I'll sign it. But then he said he's not ready to make a decision in 60 days.

So this provision doesn't require him to make a decision. It tells him this is going to be decided. This is going to be done. That's what we used to call earmarks, and in fact this is an earmark--a special interest earmark.

On its merits, this legislative earmark for TransCanada makes no sense. Mandating approval of the Keystone XL pipeline might help jobs in other countries. It might create more jobs in Canada. But when the Republicans tell us it's going to produce so many jobs in the United States, they are not buying a pipeline; they are buying a pipe dream.

A green light for Keystone will lead to massive imports of transmission pipe manufactured overseas. The American people will bear all the risks and Big Oil will reap all the rewards of this pipeline. We are going to get more carbon pollution, more dangerous oil spills, land seizures by a foreign company, and higher oil prices in the Midwest. Big Oil gets the ability to extract more profits from the Midwest, a conduit for exploiting tar sands products to China, because that's where this oil is going to go. Because it's an international transport of oil from these tar sands from Canada to the United States going down to the Gulf, it can then be put on steamers and sent to China, and there is no restriction against it. We have open markets, and China would be delighted to take that oil. But it is not going to benefit us. It is going to benefit China.

President Obama listened to the differing views of American citizens and he made a responsible decision. He said he was not going to approve this pipeline through the ecologically fragile Sand Hills area of Nebraska. But the State Department would consider an alternative route, and Nebraska is still looking for another route that would be acceptable to the State.

The President is making sure he has all the information he needs to make the right decision. This provision takes the opposite approach. It gives the pipeline an unprecedented legislative earmark. It doesn't give discretion. It requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve the pipeline immediately, even though we don't know what route it will take through Nebraska.

I think we ought to recognize these tar sands in Canada are very, very dirty, and it is going to require a lot of energy to get them into an oil form that can be transported through a pipeline. The consequence of that is going to be to add more carbon emissions at a time when our planet is already suffering from global warming and extreme climate change.

It would be incredibly reckless for Congress to jeopardize this critically important transportation bill by playing politics over an unrelated and extraneous provision. I urge my colleagues to reject this motion and to not put in this poison pill provision that would lead to the whole transportation bill being vetoed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), an important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I'd like, at this time, to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has?

Before I yield to Mr. Rush from Illinois, I just want to make a comment.

We need to get ourselves off of our dependence on oil whether it is from the United States or overseas; and if we go along with this pipeline, we are increasing our dependence on a very, very dirty oil that is going to use up a lot of carbon just to be able to get it into a State where it can be sent down that pipeline.

I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member and, hopefully, the next chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Those of us who are speaking on this motion to instruct the conferees are from the Energy and Commerce Committee, not the Transportation Committee, which developed the fundamental underlying bill to which this pipeline issue has been attached. The transportation bill provides an enormous amount of money for people to have jobs building the roads, mass transit, other kinds of transportation systems, and that all will be stopped if we don't renew the transportation bill itself.

The Senate, on an overwhelming bipartisan basis, got together and passed a transportation bill. The House wasn't able to do that. We were passing short-term extensions of existing law until we passed something to go to conference, and we're now in conference. So the motion is to instruct the conferees to take the House position on this pipeline issue.

The problem with it is the President has said he'll veto the bill. He'll veto the transportation bill if the pipeline provision is in it. He said it because he feels it needs to be reviewed before the decision is made on whether to allow this pipeline to be built. I don't consider that unreasonable.

What's really going on here is the Republicans want to stick it to the President. This is all politics. They want to make the President have to veto the bill, and then they'll say he vetoed the bill, how outrageous it is.

Let's not play politics. Let's reject this motion to instruct.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which CBO has determined will have no impact on direct spending or appropriations, seeks to address an issue that I believe is preventing many of today's servicemembers from pursuing the mental health and addiction treatment that they so desperately need.

Quite simply, it prevents promotion boards from considering any other source of information from official documents, word of mouth, any source

about the pursuit of treatment for mental health or addiction issues. The amendment provides necessary exceptions for individuals who are determined by a physician to be a danger to themselves or others, would be unable or unfit to accomplish the duties of higher rank, or if they give consent to consideration of such information. And lastly, and I believe most importantly, the amendment requires the Department of Defense to inform current servicemembers about these prohibitions.

As we all know, Mr. Chairman, mental health issues, like PTSD and depression, are the signature wounds of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, we have entered these wars with an outdated military culture that stigmatized mental health issues and often equated pursuing treatment with weakness.

Mr. Chairman, we have made amazing progress since then, and I applaud the Department of Defense and the Armed Services Committee for their efforts. Yet I still hear from servicemembers who are afraid that pursuing mental health treatment will negatively impact their prospects for promotion and others who are absolutely convinced that this is a pervasive problem in the ranks, that many servicemembers believe this. Now, these individuals are dedicated to their jobs and determined to progress in their careers, so, not surprisingly, they hesitate in pursuing treatment.

Of course I understand that HIPAA prevents medical records from being considered--including those on mental health--with good reason. But we need to be absolutely sure that the fears of our servicemembers do not come to pass in other ways. We need to make explicit that promotion boards are not only prevented from considering medical records but also information on treatment received by word of mouth, from other areas of personnel files, or in any other form. This will reflect our modern understanding of mental health and addiction issues--that they should be treated, not ignored, and that individuals can overcome them.

But I believe, Mr. Chairman, the most important aspect of this amendment, the main reason I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it, is that we need to be sure that our servicemembers know and are fully aware about these prohibitions.

Some may argue against this amendment, claiming that it perpetuates a myth, that, in fact, treatment information is not considered. Their argument perfectly illustrates why this amendment is so necessary. Because many servicemembers believe they will be penalized for pursuing treatment. And as long as this is true, we will still have our brave men and women suffer in silence. With screening and counseling, they could get healthy. They could perform their duties at a much higher level. And they could avoid falling into the traps of addiction, domestic violence, and homelessness that await too many of our veterans when the return home.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the individuals assigned to the promotion boards have the best interests of the military at heart, and I believe that they do their jobs quite well. The quality of our advanced ranks proves just that. But I want to be sure that we do everything possible to remove the stigma on mental health treatment until all servicemembers are comfortable pursuing the treatment that they need. I believe this amendment is an important step in that direction. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment includes two of my amendments.

The first seeks to address what many consider to be a serious mistake made by our military and this Congress over the last decade of war, that is, allowing some of our troops, including several of my constituents, to deploy without certain equipment that they need to be safe in combat. Instead, these troops had to rely on their families and friends to send them this vital equipment.

My amendment calls on the DOD to survey troops who have served since September 11 in order to find out what, if any, equipment they did without and what equipment they relied on family and friends to send them.

I want to be clear. This is not an effort to condemn our military or the Armed Services Committee. In fact, I applaud their valuable efforts in this area. Yet, now that we are winding down our war in Afghanistan and we are out of Iraq, we need to understand our mistakes to avoid making them again in future conflicts.

My second amendment is very simply a reintroduction of language adopted last year by unanimous consent but that was, unfortunately, removed in conference.

It addresses the fact that our servicemembers deployed in Afghanistan only receive mental health assessments prior to deployment and after returning home. Yet it is during deployment--in combat--that these events leading to mental health issues are most likely to occur. Over months of deployment without diagnosis or treatment, their performances could suffer; they could develop dangerous addictions; and in tragic but far too common instances, they could hurt themselves or others.

My amendment requires the DOD to provide mental health assessments to our troops during deployment, improving the chances of catching and treating PTSD and other issues early.

I ask all of my colleagues to stand up for the physical safety and mental well-being of our troops.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.

I think Mr. Miller raises some justifiable concerns about how much we're going to need to look into this further as we go forward. I believe we can be committed to doing that in conference and have that conversation.

But the biggest reason to pass this is because of the first thing it does, and that extends the current law that is set to expire for servicemembers who are deployed not being foreclosed. We have passed it in this Chamber; it has not passed in the Senate. If we put this into the Defense authorizing bill, it gives us another bite at the apple, another chance to make sure this passes without being sunsetted.

And then the other provisions I think are worthy expansions of the protection.

Now, just so we're clear, it doesn't expand it forever so that someone who's 100 percent service disabled would never be foreclosed upon. It merely gives the judge greater discretion to prohibit that foreclosure as long as justice would require, which I think is good protection for people who

are 100 percent service disabled and for surviving spouses and for the others that are added to this.

I think there is cause to further vet this. I personally pledge to work with the majority as we go forward to do that, but I think the amendment is worthy of support because of how important this issue is.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes an enormous amount of sense. There is no question North Korea is a threat, but there are two very salient points. First of all, as Mr. Johnson stated, we have a number of troops in South Korea. We have a number of options, including nuclear submarines and bombers in the region. We have on the table what we need to deal with that threat militarily.

Yes, Mr. Franks had an amendment in the committee that asked us to look at ways to expand that, including the possibility of deploying tactical nuclear weapons to the region, which I think is very dangerous to talk about. But specifically, it would be very dangerous to deploy those tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea. That's why this amendment is limited to saying that that would be a bad idea.

We all remember the Cuban missile crisis, how people are likely to react to nuclear weapons being deployed close by them. And North Korea is hardly a predictable actor. I can say with quite a great deal of confidence that if we were to put tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea, it would be an incredibly dangerous thing to do in terms of predicting how North Korea would react.

This amendment simply states what I think is the obvious: It would be a bad idea to put tactical nuclear weapons into South Korea. To some degree, it makes more--rational perhaps is too strong a word--user friendly Mr. Franks' amendment in the committee, by at least making it clear that this very bad option for our national security interests is not going to be contemplated.

This amendment says that we should not put tactical nuclear weapons into South Korea. I think that is clearly the right policy, and I urge adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I am just asking for a simple yes or no answer instead of a long report. Is this in the national security interest or isn't it? I think that's a worthy thing to get a straightforward answer to.

But I want to talk one last time about the alleged secret deal that's been spoken of. And I must compliment Mr. Turner. He obviously went to an excellent propaganda school. If you keep saying something over and over again, even though there is not a shred of evidence to support it, eventually people will believe that there might actually be something there, even though it is a complete fabrication.

There is no secret deal. The President would like to negotiate with Russia in a way to better protect our national security over missile defense. That is what he said. Yet they keep saying ``secret deal,'' as if something exists when there is not a shred of evidence that it does. And it is absolutely clear-cut that all the President was saying was that during an election year, an issue like this would be subject to demagoguery precisely like this, and it would be difficult to do.

Now, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and others will probably oppose whatever agreement the President might be able to reach in the future with the Russians. And that's fine. We can have a robust debate about it.

But to continue to stand up here on the floor and talk about a secret deal Mr. Turner knows doesn't exist is very disingenuous and not helpful to the larger debate. We can have the debate about what we should be negotiating with the Russians and shouldn't be.

Some long for the days of the Cold War, wish we could go back to a full-blown confrontation with Russia. I don't, and the President doesn't. He would like to find a way where we can work together to create a more peaceful world. I would like to give him the opportunity.

But no deal exists, secret or otherwise. There is not a shred of evidence for that. Yet we keep hearing that said, and we know why we keep hearing it said, so it can be demagogued, so people can begin to believe something exists when there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that it does.

I urge support for the gentleman from Georgia's amendment and for people to try to break through all of that and understand that just because the words ``secret deal'' keep being said doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who is one of the primary sponsors of the Keystone pipeline legislation, and the route of the pipeline will be going partially through his home State of Nebraska.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

At this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a real advocate for the Keystone pipeline.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask who has the right to close?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for introducing this motion to instruct as I think it is for the benefit of the American people. Yet, having said this in many hearings on this subject, I really am puzzled as to how people can be opposed to the Keystone pipeline.

Many people have come up today who have been opposed to it, and they've talked about the necessity for jobs. The Keystone pipeline will create many jobs. As a matter of fact, we know that oil from the oil sands in Canada is already coming to America. There are over 1,000 American companies today supplying goods and services to Canadian oil sands and pipeline companies.

Just to give you an example, with regard to Caterpillar, which makes the 797--the world's largest truck--the engines are made in Indiana; the cab is fabricated and installed in Illinois; the frame component is cast in Louisiana; and the Michelin tires are made in South Carolina. That's just one. I could go through here and list a multitude of companies from which jobs are being created because of the oil sands, and only more will be created if we can build this new pipeline.

People say, Oh, you're going to export all this oil. Well, I genuinely believe that is a red herring. The Department of Energy, itself, did an analysis of this and said, if any oil were exported coming out of Canada, it would be a very minute amount. Yes, we do export some petroleum products now, but no one can honestly say--and no one has ever heard--that we intend to export the majority part of this oil, not even close to it. So I think that is a red herring.

I might also say that there was a moratorium on the Transatlantic pipeline in Canada from exporting oil. We found out that, when that happened, oil production in America went down because companies decided, well, the prices are down, and we're not going to be able to export any. Then President Clinton lifted that moratorium. So I think the gentleman from Massachusetts, in making this argument of, ``Oh, we've got to prevent export'' is a red herring.

There are a lot of pipelines already in America. On the average, they were studied for 18 months before they were approved. This pipeline has been studied for 40 months. I might also say that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has put together 57 additional safety measures for this pipeline that are not on other pipelines. This would be the safest pipeline built in America.

So we have the ability here, if the President would simply approve it, of building a pipeline that will bring 830,000 more barrels of oil a day to America. I still believe in supply and demand. If supply goes up, prices go down, and I think that we all recognize that. Yet President Obama received a final environmental impact statement from the State Department.

That environmental impact statement said, between the option of building this pipeline and not building this pipeline, the preference would be to build the pipeline.

That's why we all were so shocked. It's because, after that, we thought the President would approve this pipeline. But what did he say?

I don't want to make a decision until after the Presidential election.

Now, I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but I'm assuming he was concerned about the environmental groups, and that's fine. Yet to deprive the American people of approximately 20,000 new jobs directly in building the pipeline, additional jobs like Caterpillar that would be selling more products to the Canadian companies where the oil sands are being produced--the oil is being produced in the oil sands--really makes no sense.

This is a safe pipeline. It's 1,700 miles long. Only 60 miles of this pipeline route was suggested to be changed, which was in Nebraska, and the Governor of Nebraska and the legislature in Nebraska agreed with the change.

They've basically signed off on this. So I am puzzled by why anybody would be opposed to it. More oil, more jobs, less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Yeah, we all would like to be less dependent on oil, but I tell you what, there are not enough electric cars in America to provide the necessary transportation that we need, despite the millions of dollars from President Obama's stimulus funds into the production of it.

The reality is we need oil. We have an opportunity to do it here, to create jobs. I think the perfect place for this to be considered is in the transportation bill because we're talking about transporting oil for America to be less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

I would urge everyone to support the gentleman from Georgia and his motion, and I urge everyone to vote in favor of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman from California.

The transportation bill should be about increasing the number of riders on our mass transit systems to reduce our oil dependence. It should be about increasing the number of riders in HOV lanes to ease commuters' lives and to encourage people to get more energy-efficient vehicles. The transportation bill should not be used as a vehicle to force approval of the Keystone XL ``export'' pipeline, because that's what it is--it's an extra large export pipeline.

The American Petroleum Institute ads claim that the Keystone pipeline will deliver oil ``to power our country.'' Sounds great. But in fact, there is no legislative guarantee that even a single drop of this oil and fuel from the Keystone ``export'' pipeline would stay in the United States for American consumers.

When I asked, in the hearing, the president of the TransCanada pipeline company whether he would guarantee that the oil that came from Canada through the entirety of the United States would stay here in the United States, he said no, I will not give you a guarantee. So let us not hear again from the Republicans about how this is oil for America because the president of the pipeline would not give us a guarantee that he would keep the oil here in the United States. And why is that? Because the pipeline is going to Port Arthur, Texas.

Now, what's so special about Port Arthur, Texas? Well, it just happens to be that it's a tax-free zone. So they're going to bring this pipeline, without any environmental safeguards because they just want to approve it themselves, the Congress--and a congressional expert is an oxymoron, okay. There is no such thing compared to real environmental experts, real experts in this area. A congressional expert is like jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City nightlife--I mean, there is no such thing. And yet they're saying, no, let's approve the pipeline. No environmental safeguards--we'll just move it through, we're experts. We're going to supersede the Environmental Protection Agency and send it to Port Arthur, Texas. And then, in Port Arthur, Texas, it's going to get sent, and guess where it's going to get sent? You don't have to be Dick Tracy to figure this out. It's going to be sent to China. It's going to be sent to Latin America. It's going to be sent to Europe--tax free.

By the way, if you represent Port Arthur, Texas--if you represent any part of Texas, vote ``yes'' on this resolution. I'll throw in Louisiana and Oklahoma as well. But if you come from another State, I don't know what you're thinking. I really don't know what you're thinking. You don't have a guarantee on the environment. You don't have a guarantee that the oil is going to stay here in the United States. You're going to accept the canards, the fabrications, the misrepresentations that this is oil for America, when no one will put it in the bill that the oil must stay in America.

You won't hear the president of TransCanada or ExxonMobil or Chevron saying the oil is going to stay in America--let me know when that happens. This is oil that they're going to sell in other parts of the world. And why do they want to do that? Because right now a barrel of oil in the United States is $93 a barrel, and a barrel of oil in Europe is $115 a barrel. You don't have to be a finance major to figure out that they want to sell that oil on the world market.

So all we are is just a big conduit for that dirtiest oil in the world coming out of Canada, coming right through the United States-- without environmental safeguards--going to Port Arthur, Texas, tax-free zone, to send it so that ExxonMobil and the rest of these companies can make a fortune on the global market. Now, is that crazy or what?

Why are we debating this right now? And why are we listening to these people at the same time that we export? You know something else we export, ladies and gentlemen? We export our young men and women over to the Middle East in order to protect oil coming into the United States. We should not be exporting young men and women at the expense of domestic oil which we could keep in our own country. That should not be exported, not if more young men and women have to be sent overseas in order to protect the oil lines coming in from the Middle East. That's our greatest vulnerability.

So vote ``no'' on this resolution. This is the capstone of the Republican majority's commitment to the oil industry. It is something that is very consistent with everything that they have done since they took over the majority. But the truth of the matter is is that this is just a one-way trip to exotic locations in China and Morocco and Singapore for oil that is going to compromise the environment of the United States and not protect our security one whit.

I'm waiting for the first Republican to stand up and accept an amendment which would keep that oil in the United States. It just is not going to happen.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It would simply allow individuals of any age to enlist in the military so long as they were able to meet all of the requirements to ensure that they're fit for duty.

Under current law, only individuals who are 42 years of age or younger are allowed to enlist in the military. This seems to be an arbitrary number. As we can all probably attest, there are some 20- year-olds that cannot run a mile. Yet there are a growing number of middle-aged men and women who are extremely physically fit and, whether due to family, work, or other obligations, were unable to enlist when they were younger.

I've heard from some of these individuals. Mr. Chairman. They are competitive runners, triathletes, and general fitness enthusiasts. I daresay they are stronger and fitter than many younger people, and they have an added benefit of life experience and maturity. Yet when they attempt to use these skills to serve their country, the military tells them, We don't want you, you're too old.

Not long ago, I heard from a man who was in just this situation. He is a competitive ultra-marathoner, the picture of health. This gentleman, who after starting a family and establishing a career, decided he was finally able to realize his dream of serving in his country's military. Unfortunately, he was told that he was just a few months too old. As a result, he could not enlist.

While stories like this gentleman's are compelling, there are other loss potentials to consider, also. One of our colleagues, my good friend and the gentleman from my home State of Georgia, Dr. Phil Gingrey, has experienced a similar issue. He's not trying to serve in combat. He's not trying to get a military retirement. He simply wants to serve his country using his training as a medical doctor. He went to enlist in the Navy Reserve; and to his surprise he was told that he was too old, even as the need for good medical doctors in the military ranks continues to grow. We should allow people like Dr. Gingrey to enlist in the military. My amendment would do just that.

We'll hear a number of Members on the floor today who are expressing concern about the multiple tours that so many of our men and women in uniform have had to serve, often back to back over many years. I share this concern; and I believe that if we were to lift this age restriction, we could open up the military to a new population of strong, capable individuals, who in many cases have finished their education and their careers, and have seen their children grow into adulthood. Many of them aren't seeking military retirement, but rather have advanced in their careers, put away enough for retirement, and are ready for a new challenge.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I'm 66 years of age. I'm in the United States Navy Reserve today, an active reservist as a general medical officer. There are many reservists not only in the Navy, but in other branches of the service that are beyond 42 years of age.

We have a critical need for doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, dentists, other specialties in our military, even as we turn down the size of our forces. I think it's critical to have the ability for people who want to serve, who are physically fit, who can meet all the requirements to be able to do so. That's all this amendment does. It does not waive any physical requirements. It does not waive anything that is out there today for someone to enlist. It's just going to utilize people who have the capability of serving to allow them to do so. Not doing so is actually discriminating against them just because they have celebrated a few birthdays.

I mentioned in my comments about an ultramarathoner that the military actually wanted. This guy was in better shape than most people who are in their twenties after they leave boot camp. The Army wanted him, but because he was just a couple of months too old, the law would not allow him to enlist.

He would have served this Nation very admirably. He wanted to serve. He was physically fit. He was capable of doing anything that a 20-year- old is capable of doing today. And my amendment would allow him--as well as the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey)--to serve.

Dr. Gingrey is in good physical condition. He just wants to go utilize his medical experience and provide medical services to our men and women in uniform, and he should be allowed to do so also.

So I encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.