Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 497 had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, ISIL poses a threat of extraordinary significance to the United States. In its size, its wealth, and its barbarity, it is, in fact, a threat to all of civilization.

This week, we will be voting to fund one piece of the ongoing effort to rid the world of the cancer that is ISIL, and that is the training and equipping of the opposition in Syria. Whether to support the rebels is an important decision, but it pales in comparison to the larger question facing Congress and the Nation, and that is: Should we authorize the President to use our Armed Forces in Syria and Iraq?

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it appears that we will not be considering that larger question before we leave town in advance of the election. This is, I believe, a mistake of constitutional dimension. The administration has acknowledged that the military campaign we are about to embark upon amounts to war and will likely last years.

If Congress' power to declare war is to mean anything, it must compel us to act under circumstances such as these. If we sit on our hands, we set a precedent for future administrations that they may wage war without Congress' approval, and the declaration clause is no more than excess verbiage in our Constitution from a bygone era.

The President has broad authority as Commander in Chief to defend the Nation, but that authority is not without limit. As one former constitutional law professor and then Senator named Barack Obama said in 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to

unilaterally authorize a

military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping

an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.

The administration has acknowledged that ISIL does not yet pose an imminent threat; nonetheless, it has asserted that it has the authority to act based on the 2001 authorization to use military force against al Qaeda passed in the days immediately following September 11. This reasoning is tenuous as best. That authorization addressed to a different enemy, at a different time, and at a different place does not provide the legal foundation for a war on ISIL, an organization that itself is at war with al Qaeda.

Today I have introduced a tailored and narrow authorization for the use of force in Iraq and Syria. My resolution specifies the enemy and explicitly does not authorize the large-scale deployment of ground troops to fight in either country. The resolution includes an 18-month sunset clause so that Congress can insist on its oversight role. It also immediately repeals the 2002 resolution to use force in Iraq and provides the same 18-month sunset for the 2001 authorization to use force, to harmonize the legal authority we provide to wage war against any foe and to ensure that no future President can claim to use it as a basis for unilateral action.

In matters of war, Congress is not some suitor that needs to be asked by the President to dance. Requested or not, Congress must exercise its responsibility to decide whether to send the Nation's sons and daughters to war. We should not go to war, let alone adjourn, without a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Bruce Wayne Philpott of Pasadena, California, former Pasadena Police Chief, who passed away on Tuesday, July 29, 2014, after courageously battling a prolonged illness.

Born in Portland, Oregon on January 8, 1944, to Vernon and Zoe Philpott, Bruce grew up in Portland and later, in Sunland, California. A natural athlete, Bruce enjoyed sports, especially baseball, hiking and camping, and fishing trips with his father and his two brothers, Kent and Gary. He earned his Bachelor of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles and completed graduate studies at the University of Southern California School of Public Administration.

As a young man, Bruce became a law enforcement officer with the Pasadena Police Department. He served the police department with honor and distinction for 28 years, successfully moving through the ranks to the position of Chief of Police. In addition to his work with the police department, Chief Philpott served his community as a Special Assistant to the Pasadena City Manager and Director of Northwest Development, commander of the Pasadena Fire Department's Support Services Division, as well as teaching classes at Pasadena High School and Pasadena City College. He received several awards including the Community Ethics Award from the Glendale Character and Ethics Project, the Brotherhood Citation from the National Conference of Christians and Jews, and the Pasadena Police Department's Silver Award of Merit.

After his retirement, in 1991, Chief Philpott continued to ardently serve his community through political activism and volunteering with numerous organizations. He was known for being outspoken and tenacious, with a passion for social justice and advocating for youth, especially related to inequity and poverty. Bruce helped revitalize the northwest Pasadena community and played a significant role in the Villa Parke youth boxing program. He was the co-founder and served on the board of the Community Non-Violence Resource Center, co-founder and Board President of Day One, a nonprofit organization focused on addressing issues of drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse in Pasadena area youth, and he developed and facilitated the Partnership Workshop, Healing the Heart of America, A National Cities Conference, in Richmond, Virginia. In addition, he served on the board of directors for the Jackie Robinson Foundation, Pasadena Boys and Girls Club, Pasadena Planned Parenthood, Child Health Foundation and the Western Justice Center Foundation.

Bruce is survived by his three children, Kris Strong, Kelly Sturgeon and Greg Philpott, his brother, Kent Philpott, and his five grandchildren, Dustin, Samantha, Carson, Nicole and Mark.

Chief Philpott was an irreplaceable part of our community, and he will be greatly missed. A model public servant and a man of impeccable character, I ask all members to join me in remembering Bruce Wayne Philpott.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Louis Andrew Beattie, Jr. of La Canada Flintridge, California, an outstanding community leader, who passed away on Sunday, July 27, 2014.

Louis Beattie, better known as ``Andy,'' was born on February 3, 1953 in Brownsville, Pennsylvania to Louis Andrew Beattie, Sr. and Marilynn Beattie. The Beattie family moved to Ventura, California in 1956, where Andy attended El Camino Elementary School, Anacapa Junior High School, and Buena High School where he was ASB President, Sophomore Class President, and a member of the Buena High School Hall of Fame. Andy graduated from Occidental College in 1975, earning a B.A. in Political Science. He was a devoted alumnus of Occidental College, serving as President of the Alumni Association Board of Governors and as a member of the Occidental College Board of Trustees. Andy had a long and successful career in the fashion and clothing industry, holding the position of Senior Vice President of Strategic Partners, Inc., a uniform and apparel company. Because of his interest and experience in the clothing industry, he and his wife, Kim, formed a line of pajamas called Liz & Lauren, named after their eldest daughter, Lauren Elizabeth, an enterprise of which he was very proud.

Andy was dedicated in both his professional pursuits and his commitment to serving his community and our country. On the local level, Mr. Beattie was a Public Safety Commissioner for La Canada Flintridge for six years, playing a significant role in initiating La Canada Flintridge's new ``Alert LCF'' emergency notification system and the city's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. He served as president of the La Canada Unified School Board, working to improve the educational programs and buildings in the La Canada Flintridge schools, and president of the La Canada High School Spartan Boosters. Andy's public service extended beyond his local community as he spent many years volunteering for the White House's Office of Advance, a department responsible for coordinating the travel schedules of the President and press corps. Mr. Beattie travelled with President Clinton and President Obama often, and he visited several nations including Iraq, Poland, South Korea, Chile, and India during his service for the White House.

Andy Beattie is remembered in his community as a fair, honest, smart, and thoughtful person, who ``put family first.'' He is survived by his wife, Kim Beattie, their three daughters, Sarah, Katherine, and Lauren, his mother, Marilynn, and his brothers, Neil and John.

Andy was an exceptional community leader, admired by all as a man of impeccable character and he will be greatly missed. I ask all members to join me in remembering Louis Andrew Beattie, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is the most fundamental right in any democracy since it is the right from which all others meaningfully derive.

Deny someone the right to vote, and you may deny them the right to speak, to associate with whom they choose, or to freely exercise their faith. For if these other rights are infringed, how may we seek redress but at the ballot box?

Not even the courts can secure our rights in the absence of an effective franchise. Congress established the inferior courts, and Congress may abolish them. The right to vote alone is foundation to all of the others.

So it is deeply disturbing to see the right to vote being diminished in many States. These new State laws restrict voter registration drives, eliminate same-day voter registration, reduce the early voting period, and require photo identification and proof of citizenship to vote.

In total, 34 States have passed laws now requiring voters to show some kind of identification at the polls. For many Americans who already are registered to vote and can provide this documentation, these new requirements may not sound burdensome. But although these new laws apply to all Americans, they disproportionately impact young, elderly, minority, low-income, and disabled voters.

Eleven percent of American citizens do not have a photo ID; 7 percent do not have citizenship documents. That means a significant number of eligible voters have been disenfranchised by these new laws.

It has been argued that it is appropriate to put a significant burden on people who simply want to cast their vote because voter fraud is widespread, but it is not. It is true that in jurisdictions which allow people to pay a bounty for new voter registration cards that voter registration fraud exists. But voter registration fraud is not the same as voter fraud, since these false registrations do not result in nonexistent people voting.

The fraud artists should be prosecuted for violating the law and cluttering up the voter registration rolls, but legitimate voters should not be disenfranchised. Rather, we should crack down on the bounty system that incentivizes this kind of misconduct.

These new and stringent voter ID laws will not stop voter registration fraud, but they will prevent legitimate voters from casting their ballots. Indeed, in many places, this is their very intention. They are the worst form of voter suppression, not voter protection.

The backward movement on voting rights is not confined to the States. The Supreme Court has also made it more difficult to ensure adequate protection from disenfranchisement.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required that nine States and many other counties and municipalities around the country with histories of voter discrimination obtain Federal preclearance before changing voter laws. However, the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, ruled that the formula to determine which jurisdictions must get preclearance is out-of-date.

Immediately thereafter, Texas announced that a previously blocked voter identification law would go into effect and that redistricting maps would no longer need Federal approval, actions that could severely undermine minority voting rights in that State.

In January, the Voting Rights Amendment Act was introduced to restore and strengthen the protections of the VRA that were dismantled by the Supreme Court. This bill was introduced by Congressman John Conyers and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, demonstrating the bipartisan support for restoring a crowning achievement of the civil rights movement. I am a strong supporter of the Voting Rights

Amendment Act, and I am encouraged that Members of both parties see the need for this legislation.

As a country, we have made incredible progress in expanding the right to vote to previously disenfranchised populations. Now is not the time to turn the clock back. We should, instead, be moving forward, ever forward, and encouraging legal, eligible voters to fully participate in their government, in democracy, and in voting--not working to exclude them.

Congress must commit to passing the Voting Rights Amendment Act and ensuring that the ballot boxes in our States, in our Nation, and in our democracy remain open to all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The constitutional question raised by this

measure is whether the House has standing to sue the President over what is, in essence, a policy difference. ``Standing'' is a constitutionally-defined status and requires that the plaintiff, among other things, demonstrate a legally recognizable injury. In the case of a suit between branches of government, the House would also have to show that there is no other remedy.

On both of these counts, this lawsuit fails. The House cannot speak for the Senate, which doesn't agree with its position, and therefore cannot represent the legislative branch. Even if it could, neither body has suffered a recognizable injury merely because some Members of the Congress do not like how the President has interpreted a law passed by a different Congress.

Moreover, this Congress has a remedy if it doesn't like the way that the President has implemented the Affordable Care Act: it can change the law. That would be a far better approach, one more consistent with our separation of powers than this expensive and ill-conceived lawsuit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to reject this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mary Boger, who has dedicated her life to community service and has been a tremendous force in education. Mary, a long time Glendale resident along with her husband, Dr. Donald Boger, is retiring from her civic responsibilities and moving to New Bedford, Massachusetts.

A strong and passionate advocate of education and children, Mary began serving on the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) Board of Education in 2002. She has held the positions of Clerk, Vice President, and has been Board President many times, a position that she currently holds. In addition to serving as a Board Member of the GUSD, Mary has served as Vice President of the California School Boards Association and a Board Representative for the Five Star Education Coalition.

Mary's accomplishments in community service are nothing short of extraordinary. Over the years, she has tirelessly served on numerous boards and committees. Mary has served as President of the Glendale Council Parent Teacher Association, Glendale Healthy Kids, the National Charity League, Inc.--Glendale Chapter, and Las Candelas, which provides services to emotionally disturbed children and provides financial support to the facilities in which the children reside. Mary has also served as Chair of the City of Glendale Blue Ribbon Panel on Parks, Co-Chair of the City of Glendale Citizens' Memorial Advisory Committee, and on the Board of Directors for the Glendale YWCA, Prom Plus, Crescenta Valley Fireworks Association and the Glendale Symphony Orchestra.

Mary has received numerous awards and recognition, including the Business Life Magazine Women Achievers in 2009, the Glendale Chamber of Commerce Woman of the Year in 2009, the Glendale YWCA Woman of Heart & Excellence in 2008, and California's Twenty Ninth Congressional District Woman of the Year in 2003.

I have worked with Mary for years, and know that her passion for education and young people is unequalled. No one has left a bigger or more positive impact on education in our region, or has commanded greater respect from parents, teachers and students. I am so proud to call her my friend and so grateful for her service. I ask all Members to join me in thanking Mary Boger for her unwavering commitment to the children of our community, and wish her well in all future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, Friday, July 25, marks the 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). In 1974, Congress--with bipartisan support, including that of President Nixon--established LSC to be a major source of funding for civil legal aid in this country. LSC is a private, nonprofit corporation, funded by Congress, with the mission to ensure equal access to justice under law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. LSC distributes nearly 94 percent of its annual Federal appropriations to 134 local legal aid programs, with nearly 800 offices serving every congressional district and U.S. territory.

LSC-funded legal aid programs make a crucial difference to millions of Americans by assisting with the most basic civil legal needs. These low-income Americans are women seeking protection from domestic violence, mothers trying to obtain child support or navigate custody hearings, families facing unlawful evictions or foreclosures that could leave them homeless, veterans seeking benefits duly earned, seniors defending against consumer scams, and individuals who have lost their jobs and need help in applying for unemployment compensation and other benefits.

In my district, LSC provides funding to Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, an organization which provided legal aid to over 4,600 clients last year and looks to increase that number this year. But despite that enormous contribution to our society and an increasing demand for their services, Neighborhood Services of Los Angeles County, and many of its sister institutions across the country, have seen their LSC funding diminish in recent years.

Given the vital role played by LSC-funded attorneys, we need to do better than turn away more than 50 percent of eligible clients who seek assistance because of lack of LSC program resources. With the growing number of Americans eligible for services and increased demand for legal services, the need for legal aid attorneys has never been greater. On this anniversary, I salute the Legal Services Corporation and LSC-funded attorneys for the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who need qualified counsel, as well as the thousands of attorneys who contribute pro bono services to clients in need. Every day that a legal aid attorney protects the safety, security and health of our most vulnerable citizens, they bring this nation closer to living up to its commitment to equal justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, while the documentary ``Blackfish'' ignited a public and passionate debate over whether orcas should be held in captivity for the purposes of display and entertainment, as they are at Sea World and other parks around the world, marine mammal experts have, for decades, been engaged in a longer discussion about the scientific value and morality of keeping killer whales in captivity.

``Blackfish'' documents the history of the captivity of orcas in the United States, focusing on one whale named Tilikum, who figured in the deaths of three of his trainers.

Public displays of animals can engage our children and kindle a lifelong interest in and respect for wildlife. They can sometimes add to our scientific body of knowledge. Indeed, these are often cited as the justifications for keeping animals in captivity. Yet the shows in which these animals are displayed often have more in common with a rock concert than a scientific exposition, and many believe that the psychological and physical harm done to these magnificent animals far outweighs any benefits reaped from their display.

Here are a few facts that call into question the propriety of keeping these animals in captivity.

In the wild, orcas frequently swim 100 miles a day and dive to great depths in search of food. In captivity, they are held in tiny, shallow concrete pools where they often wallow listlessly when not being asked to perform.

In the wild, the average life expectancy for male orcas is 30, and for females it is 50 years; whereas, most captive orcas die before they reach the age of 25. Remarkably, a 103-year-old orca was recently spotted off the coast of Canada.

In the wild, dorsal fin collapse is extremely rare, but all adult male orcas in captivity have collapsed dorsal fins. Many scientists attribute this phenomenon to the condition of their captivity, such as repetitive circular swimming patterns, gravitational pull from spending the vast majority of the

time at the surface of the water, and dehydration.

Marine mammals are some of the most intelligent nonhuman animals on Earth. They are highly social and live in matrilineal pods that can be as large as 40 individuals. Pod members are interdependent. Pods often have their own hunting techniques and communication styles that some argue are akin to language or dialect. Orcas in marine parks do not live in natural pods, and separation of calves and mothers has been documented on multiple occasions.

In the wild, not a single human death has been attributed to an orca, but captive orcas are responsible for numerous injuries and deaths. Because of this, the Labor Department's OSHA office has conducted an investigation and issued new rules aimed at protecting human trainers and handlers of orcas by prohibiting those trainers from getting in close contact with the animals during the shows. These rules have recently been upheld by the court of appeals.

Last month, my colleague Jared Huffman and I advanced an amendment to require USDA to finalize long-delayed regulations pertaining to the captivity of orcas. It is my hope that USDA will do so based on sound science and recognition of the harm these animals suffer in captivity, and not grounded in an effort to placate the interests of the industry that showcases them.

We cannot be responsible stewards of our natural environment and propagate messages about the importance of animal welfare when our policies and practices do not reflect our deeply held principles.

From my own point of view, I believe it is time to phase out killer whale captivity. This means no more captive breeding, no more wild captures. Orcas held in captivity now should live out their lives in their current habitats if they cannot likely survive in the wild. But with the death of this generation of captive orcas, we should draw a line: no more confinement in tiny tanks; no more forced social structures; no more captivity for our entertainment.

High mortality rates, aberrant behavior among orcas, the consistent collapsed dorsal fins, and the tragic deaths of trainers themselves all point in the same direction--an end to the forced captivity of these majestic creatures.

Mr. Speaker, while the documentary Blackfish ignited a passionate public debate over whether orcas should be held in captivity for the purposes of display and entertainment, as they are at Sea World and other parks around the world, marine mammal experts have, for decades, been engaged in a longer discussion about the scientific value and morality of keeping killer whales in captivity.

Blackfish documents the history of the captivity of orcas in the United States, focusing on one whale named Tilikum, who figured in the deaths of three of his trainers.

Public displays of animals can engage our children, and kindle a lifelong interest in and respect for wildlife. They can sometimes add to our scientific body of knowledge. Indeed, these are often cited as justifications for keeping these animals in captivity. Yet the shows in which these animals are displayed often have more in common with a rock concert than a scientific exposition, and many believe that the psychological and physical harm done to these animals far outweighs any benefits reaped from their display.

Here are some very simple facts that call into question the propriety of keeping these magnificent animals in captivity:

In the wild, orcas frequently swim 100 miles in a day and dive to great depths in search of food. In captivity, they are held in tiny, shallow concrete pools, where they often wallow listlessly when not being asked to perform.

In the wild, the average life expectancy for male orcas is 30, and for females is 50, whereas most captive orcas die before they reach the age of 25. Remarkably, a 103-year-old orca was recently spotted off the coast of Canada.

In the wild, dorsal fin collapse is extremely rare, but all adult male orcas in captivity have collapsed dorsal fins. Many scientists attribute this phenomenon to the conditions of their captivity--such as repetitive circular swimming patterns, gravitational pull from spending the vast majority of the time at the surface of the water, and dehydration.

Marine mammals are some of the most intelligent non-human animals on Earth. They are highly social and live in matrilineal pods that can be as large as 40 individuals. Pod members are interdependent and pods have their own hunting techniques and communication styles that some argue are akin to different languages.

Orcas in marine parks do not live in natural pods, and separations of calves and mothers have been documented on multiple occasions. When I watched the Blackfish, I was particularly struck by the description of a mother's visceral reaction when her calf was taken away from her and transported to another park--crying out with long-distance calling sounds--noises not heard previously by marine biologists at the park.

As the film Blackfish documents, several factors lead to severe psychological and physical problems for these animals when in captivity, and in many instances, can result in premature death--not to mention putting the lives of their handlers at risk. In the wild, not a single human death has been attributed to an orca, but captive orcas are responsible for numerous injuries and deaths. Because of this, the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted an investigation and issued new rules aimed to protect the human trainers and handlers of orcas by prohibiting trainers from getting in close proximity to the animals during shows. These rules were recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Last month, my colleague Rep. Jared Huffman and I advanced an amendment to require USDA to finalize long delayed regulations pertaining to the captivity of orcas. It is my hope that USDA will do so based on sound science and recognition of the harm these animals suffer in captivity, and not grounded in an effort to placate the interests of the industry that showcases them. We cannot be responsible stewards of our natural environment and propagate messages about the importance of animal welfare when our policies and practices do not reflect our deeply held principles.

From my own point of view, I believe it's time to phase out killer whale captivity. That means no more captive breeding, no more wild captures. Orcas held in captivity now should live out their lives in their current habitats, if they cannot likely survive in the wild. But with the death of this generation of captive orcas, we should draw a line. No more confinement in tiny tanks. No more forced social structures. No more captivity for our entertainment.

High mortality rates, aberrant behavior among orcas, the consistent collapsed dorsal fins, and the tragic deaths of the trainers themselves all point in the same direction--an end to the forced captivity of these majestic creatures.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 403--``aye'' (MTR) and rollcall No. 404--``no'' (final passage H.R. 4718).

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase funding for the Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy, otherwise known as ARPA-E. The bill provides $280 million for ARPA-E, which is $45 million less than the President's request. It also represents less than half of the difference between the committee mark and the President's request, with the increase offset by a reduction in the Department administrative account.

At the outset, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of our subcommittee for the level of funding provided to ARPA-E this year, which is a substantial improvement over last year's House mark which cut the program by 80 percent. However, I think that rather than providing flat funding, we should be stepping up our commitment to a potentially game-changing research program, and that is what my amendment does.

This is a very modest investment for an agency whose work is helping to reshape our economy. While the amendment would leave us still short of where the funding should be and where it is in the President's budget, passing it would send a strong signal that there is bipartisan support for this kind of research. Last year, I offered a similar amendment to restore funding to ARPA-E in this fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations Act, which was adopted by a bipartisan majority in the House.

Started in 2009, ARPA-E is a revolutionary program that advances high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early for private sector investment. ARPA-E projects have the potential to radically improve U.S. economic security, national security, and environmental well-being. ARPA-E empowers America's energy researchers with funding, technical assistance, and market readiness.

ARPA-E is modeled after the highly successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which has produced groundbreaking inventions for the Department of Defense and the

Nation, perhaps most notably the Internet itself. A key element of both agencies is that managers are limited to fixed terms so that new blood continuously revitalizes the research portfolio.

As we cut spending to return the budget to balance, we must not weaken those programs that are vital to our economic future and national security, and ARPA-E is just such an agency. Even if we can't make the investment that the President has called for in his budget, let's be sure that we don't hinder an agency that is pointing the way to a more energy-secure future.

Energy is a national security issue. It is an economic imperative. It is a health concern, and it is an environmental necessity. Investing wisely in this type of research going on at ARPA-E is exactly the direction we should be going as a nation. We want to lead the energy revolution. We don't want to see this advantage go to China or anywhere else in the world.

If we are serious about staying in the forefront of the energy revolution, we must continue to fully invest in the kind of cutting- edge work that ARPA-E represents. By providing the funding I am recommending today, we will send a clear signal of the seriousness of our intent to remain world leaders in energy.

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

I thank the chairman for his comments, and I appreciate his opposition. I appreciate his reluctance even more than his opposition.

I know the chairman has a large fan company in his district he is very proud of, and justifiably so. Those big fans need energy, Mr. Chairman. They need a good efficient energy, and ARPA-E is just the kind of agency to deliver that.

ARPA-E, as our own mark and committee report notes, supports research that is aimed at rapidly developing energy technology whose development and commercialization is still too risky to attract sufficient private sector investment but is capable of significantly changing the energy sector to address our critical economic and energy security challenges. That is an excellent description of ARPA-E.

By providing robust funding, we can help this vital Agency continue working on a wide range of programs that will benefit the United States, both in the short-term and for many years to come. These programs include improvements in petroleum refining processes, heating and cooling technologies with exceptionally high energy efficiency, and transportation fuel alternatives to greatly reduce our dependence on imported oil.

So my colleague need not be so reluctant. He can join in support of this amendment. Again, it would basically split the difference between where the bill is now and what the President has asked for. It is a little less than the difference between the two.

But our competitiveness in this global economy, where we have to compete with labor that costs a fraction of what American workers cost, depends on research and development. We don't want to get in a race to the bottom with the developing world on what we pay our workers, so that means that we have to remain the most productive in the world. This is an agency that helps us do it, and I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a bittersweet farewell to Tatoul Markarian,

Armenia's long-serving Ambassador to the United States and a man with whom I have had the pleasure of working for much of the past decade, since his appointment as Ambassador to the United States in March 2005.

The last nine years have been challenging ones for Armenia. Turkey and Azerbaijan have continued their campaign to isolate Armenia diplomatically and economically, even as the country has worked to move forward on the path to full democracy, while also seeking to develop its economy and bring needed services and opportunity to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. I have been proud to work with Ambassador Markarian and his team at the embassy on these and many other challenging issues, including recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the United States Congress, and on behalf of the tens of thousands of Armenian-Americans in my district, I wish him all the best as he takes up his position in Brussels as Armenia's Ambassador to the European Union.

Prior to taking up his post in Washington, Ambassador Markarian served as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia since June 2000. In that capacity, his responsibilities included the Ministry's Departments of Politico-Military Affairs; International Organizations; CIS Countries; and Asia-Pacific and Africa. He was also the Armenian coordinator for the U.S.-Armenia Strategic Dialogue as well as the NATO-Armenia Political-Military Dialogue. In 2002-2004, Ambassador Markarian was also Special Representative of the President of Armenia for Nagorno Karabakh negotiations. In 1999-2000, he served as Advisor to Foreign Minister.

The United States has had a great friend in Ambassador Markarian and the U.S.-Armenian relationship has been greatly strengthened by his work here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Green Beret Staff Sergeant Scott R. Studenmund of Pasadena, California, who died on June 9, 2014 in Gaza Valley, Zabul Province, Afghanistan during a combat mission.

Born on June 26, 1989, Scott Richard Studenmund was fearless from birth and embraced life fully. Scott was known for his rambunctious spirit, good sense of humor, intelligence and humility. He attended Clairbourn School from nursery school until 6th grade, Flintridge Preparatory School for middle and high school, Occidental College and Pitzer College. In high school, Scott was an avid scholar, football star and a history aficionado. He was a National Merit Finalist, an All-Area and All-League Football player and an excellent sprinter. Interested in the military since a young child, Scott spent many days practicing his tactical maneuvers with family and friends while on vacation at Lake Arrowhead or the beach. He traveled to Thailand and Cambodia and performed community service as a part of the Rustic Pathways program with his fellow schoolmates. During his time at Flintridge Preparatory School, he made a tight-knit group of friends with whom he stayed in close contact after graduation. An intense competitor, Scott was also a true gentleman who would not participate in or abide hurtful comments against others. He was extremely close to his family and was protective and proud of his sister Connell; indeed his parents never recall the two siblings ever arguing.

In 2009, Scott left college to join the U.S. Army with the goal of becoming a Green Beret. Twenty-five months later, Scott earned his Green Beret, having completed 11 different rigorous training programs, passing each one on the first try. At his Green Beret ceremony, Scott won the Leadership Award in the Special Forces Weapons Sergeant Course. He also received an Army Achievement Medal for performing ``with distinction'' in a training exercise, and earned an Expert Infantryman Badge, also known as ``The Mark of a Man,'' by completing a rigorous 40-part competition with over 100 Green Berets. In 2013, Scott completed the infamous Combat Dive School, which is considered to be the hardest school in the U.S. Army. He and his teammate won a top team award in the rigorous Special Forces Level II Sniper Course. Scott rose to the rank of Staff Sergeant while working in the 1st battalion of the 5th Special Forces Group, Bravo Company, at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Scott received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star with Valor Medal and the Meritorious Service Medal.

Scott is survived by his parents, Arnold H. and Jaynie Studenmund, sister, Connell, and half brother, Brent. He will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery, next to his friend and fellow Green Beret. Scott will be near his grandfather, Jack R. Miller, who was a U.S. Senator and Brigadier General in the Air Force Reserve and his grandmother, Jerry Miller.

Staff Sergeant Studenmund was an athlete, scholar and soldier, who loved his family, his job and his country. I ask all Members to join with me in remembering Staff Sergeant Scott Richard Studenmund, a Green Beret in the U.S. Army, a hero who died while achieving the highest honor of serving our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan proposed rule.

In the face of a Congress that is in denial about climate change, the administration is doing what it can to address a very real and very serious problem that is already manifesting itself in changing weather patterns, more frequent and hazardous wildfires, and devastating droughts.

This rule is a crucial step toward slowing climate change, developing domestic and affordable clean energy technologies, protecting public health, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Some House Republicans have called the proposed regulations reckless and, others, unconstitutional. Some have even suggested adding a rider to the appropriations bill to block the rule's implementation.

As a member of that committee, I can tell you that this would be a huge mistake that would threaten to undo the hard-won compromises in the bill.

It is shocking to me the lengths to which the majority is willing to go to deny the scientific fact that our planet is warming and that human activity is the main cause.

Here are the facts: First, power plants, today, account for approximately one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, making them the single largest source of carbon pollution.

The EPA plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants by an estimated 30 percent from 2005 levels. That is 730 million tons of carbon pollution that will not be emitted into the atmosphere, warming the climate and causing sea levels to rise.

Second, the proposal will reduce smog and particulate pollution, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides, by more than 25 percent by the year 2030.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, asthma prevalence has increased from 7.3 percent in 2001 to 8.4 percent in 2010. The proposed regulations are estimated to prevent up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children and 6,600 premature deaths by 2030.

Third, the vast majority of the American public supports these new rules. In fact, nearly 70 percent of Americans support Federal regulations to limit greenhouse gasses from existing power plants

These new rules won't be easy to implement and we will experience some difficulties along the way, but since when does America let a challenge prevent us from rolling up our sleeves and getting to work? This is a global problem and America must not act alone.

Just as we lead the world in many aspects, climate change is a critical issue where we must lead by example. I call on my colleagues to do the right thing. Stop denying the science and get to work. We can and we must act together to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, clean up our air and waters, and once again lead the way into the future.

I look forward to the EPA finalizing the proposed rule, and I hope it marks just the beginning of our efforts to address climate change before it is too late.

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

Mr. Chairman, for decades, there has been a growing debate among marine biologists and other professionals over maintaining marine mammals in captivity, but it was last year's release of the documentary ``Blackfish'' that spurred a broader public discussion over whether the conditions in which marine mammals, particularly orcas, are held for public display are humane and whether these animals should even be held in captivity.

I have serious concerns about the psychological and physical harm to orcas and other large marine mammals in captivity. Isolating these animals--which can travel hundreds of miles in a day in the wild and which live in large, complex social groupings--in a small enclosure is troubling.

There is substantial evidence that orcas in captivity live much shorter lives than those in the wild and display high levels of stress and aberrant and sometimes dangerous behavior.

Two weeks ago, Representative Huffman and I, along with 38 of our colleagues, sent a letter to the Department of Agriculture, urging them to move forward with a rulemaking regarding conditions of captivity for marine mammals under the Animal Welfare Act.

Twenty years ago, the Department recognized the need to revise regulations. Ten years ago, the Department proposed such a rulemaking and received many public comments. Since then, progress has stalled, despite the public outcry about this issue.

Our amendment would serve to kick-start that effort by providing $1 million for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to study the effect of captivity on large marine mammals, so that USDA can follow through with proposing a rule that is long overdue.

Among the issues that would benefit from an unbiased examination by APHIS are the effects of captivity on the longevity of marine mammals, whether they suffer from physical and mental maladies at a higher rate than animals in the wild and whether they display unnatural and unhealthy behaviors indicating high levels of stress.

The finding of this study will inform the USDA's consideration of reopening a rulemaking process, which could result in scientifically- based regulations that ensure humane conditions for these awe-inspiring animals.

The amendment does not change existing rules and regulations. Instead, we are calling on the USDA to gather all scientific evidence and propose a rule that has been 20 years in the making. I urge adoption of the amendment.

At this point, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), who is a leader on this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.