Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my newly introduced resolution, which honors today as the 65th anniversary of Human Rights Day and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

My resolution will shed much-needed light on the importance and protection of human rights in our global society so we can prevent acts of suppression against people like Nguyen Tien Trung of Vietnam, who has been unfairly jailed for democratic activism.

The Congress and the world must recognize that those that are denied basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, or political expression are, therefore, denied an opportunity to be treated with respect and with dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of my resolution, and I urge all Americans to observe the 65th anniversary of Human Rights Day.

Mr. Speaker, climate scientists like Dr. Rob Dunbar of Stanford are warning us that if we continue down this path of inaction, global sea levels will rise, on the average, anywhere from 1 to 7 feet by the end of this century.

Let's just take a 4-foot rise in global sea level, for example. That would devastate coastal communities and jeopardize, in my State, hundreds of thousands of Californians' properties, causing billions of dollars' worth of damage. As someone who represents a coastal port, this rise in sea level will cause us tremendous amount of infrastructure needs.

It is our responsibility to take action now to help cut greenhouse emissions so that we can start to curb some of the deepest harm caused by rising sea levels. If we do not act, we are turning our back on every coastal community not only in California, but on this entire planet.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 605 on the Tonko (NY) amendment on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 606 on the Castor (FL) amendment on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 607 on the Speier (CA) amendment on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 608 on the Jackson-Lee (TX) amendment on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 609 on the Dingell (MI) amendment on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 610 on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 611 on Final Passage of H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, transparency and public disclosure are critical ingredients to successful public policy and, I would dare say so, to successful democracy. My amendment would provide just that-- transparency and public disclosure of the hydraulic fracturing operations that are now prolific in so many States.

Right now, our communities do not have access to reliable or complete information about fracking operations. Colleagues, our communities have a right to know.

If the public has a right to know what ingredients are in their food, don't our communities have a right to know what chemicals the oil and gas industry is going to pump past their drinking water?

If the public has a right to know where Superfund pollution sites are, don't our communities have a right to know where the oil and gas industry is going to store these millions of gallons of unknown chemicals and contaminated slurry?

If the public has a right to know about major land-use changes, don't our communities have a right to know when the oil and gas industry is going to start a fracking operation next-door--with its accompanying air emissions? its truck traffic? its noise? and its derricks?

I would hope that encouraging transparency and public disclosure would be a bipartisan issue. I certainly hear about transparency from the majority when this Chamber is talking about other Federal programs. We should be consistent and make sure the people in our communities also have a right to know about fracking chemicals injected below their backyards, their schools, their farms, and their parks.

And to those who would resist providing the community a right to know about fracking operations, I would warn that you prevent transparency at the oil and gas industry's own peril.

To develop our resources responsibly and to harness the benefits of the shale gas boom, we need the public's trust, and industry will not earn it if they hide the facts. When the oil and gas industry refuses to disclose the facts, it is natural for the public to ask then: Why won't industry tell us what chemicals they are using? What are they hiding?

When the oil and gas industry hides the facts, it erodes the public's trust and breeds suspicion.

Hiding the facts prevents first responders and health workers from understanding how to appropriately treat exposed individuals after a fracking accident.

Hiding the facts prevents emergency officials from understanding how to properly contain and clean up a chemical spill after a fracking accident.

Hiding the facts prevents the public from knowing which chemicals to test for in their drinking water before, during, and after fracking.

Hiding the facts prevents researchers who conduct chemical transport studies from understanding the prevalence, the movement, and the longevity of fracking chemicals in the subsurface environment.

Hiding the facts prevents the public from verifying the oil and gas industry's assertion that hydraulic fracturing is safe.

Don't hide the facts. Our communities have a right to know. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

The amendment I offer today maintains the Interior Department's ability to review oil and gas activities for significant impacts on public health and safety, among other extraordinary circumstances.

While predictable, it is unfortunate that the majority again and again is willing to throw out basic health and safety protections in order to speed up oil and gas extractions for industry. Whether it is in this oil and gas industry bill today, in last week's mining industry bill, or in tomorrow's natural gas industry bill, the majority's common theme is that of getting rid of transparency and protections for public health and safety and of threatening our environment in the name of increased profits for industry.

This is not okay with me. This is not why I came to Washington.

The oil and gas industry is the most profitable in the world, and the rates of domestic extraction have increased under the Obama administration. ExxonMobil reported a net income of over $44 billion in 2012. I know it and Wall Street knows it, and their balance sheets prove it. These companies are doing fine. So why are we stripping our oversight agencies and the ability of the public to ensure that extraction is done responsibly and not at the expense of the welfare of this and future generations? I think it is shortsighted; I think it is irresponsible; and I think it is wrong.

H.R. 1965, as it is currently written, would prevent the Interior Department from reviewing oil and gas activities that would otherwise qualify for skipping the National Environmental Policy Act for extraordinary circumstances.

Section 390 of the Energy and Policy Act of 2005 allows certain qualifying oil and gas activities to potentially skip a full NEPA process through a categorical exclusion. Title 43 of section 46.205 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that the Interior Department test for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect and require additional analysis and action. Title 43 of section 46.215 of the Code of Federal Regulations goes on to list the types of extraordinary circumstances to be tested before proceeding with a categorical exclusion for the oil and gas activity.

Thus, before the Interior Department bypasses NEPA, this is what it currently checks for:

Are there significant impacts upon public health or safety? Are there violations of Federal, State, local, or tribal law? Are there limits to access and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites? Is there the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or of nonnative invasive species? It also lists eight other potential significant problems.

This is what the existing law and regulation does. It helps to protect the public and the environment during oil and gas activities. Simply speaking, H.R. 1965 eliminates these protections. My amendment would simply preserve them, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington is saying that, if we remove the extraordinary circumstances part of seeing whether, in fact, we grant a categorical exemption--what my amendment does by saying ``no'' is that the public must have an opportunity, if we are going to grant an exemption, which we think is fine, but what is wrong with finding out whether there is going to be a significant impact on health and safety? What is wrong with finding out if there is going to be a violation of State, Federal, local, or tribal law? What is wrong with understanding what are the limits to access to ceremonial use of sacred sites? He says that by asking these questions before we give an exemption, that this imposes regulatory red tape that is exactly the opposite of what the Nation needs, it is more bureaucracy.

It is just the opposite. This protects the Nation. This allows us to understand, when we are given a categorical exemption, that we are protecting the public health of the Nation.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the recent opening of the $340-million Gov. George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach is the culmination of nearly a decade of work. Part of the Los Angeles County Superior Court System, the new 531,000-square-foot glass-and-concrete structure replaces the current 55-year-old Long Beach courthouse that is the most outdated in the state and has been deemed seismically unfit.

The new Deukmejian Courthouse is 65 percent larger than the old courthouse, with 24 courtrooms and room to expand to 30. It is equipped with wireless Internet access throughout and space for five retail vendors to service the courthouse traffic.

For me, the road to the new Courthouse began nearly a decade ago in conversations between Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe, Long Beach Mayors Beverly O'Neill and Bob Foster, myself and the then- presiding judge of the Long Beach courthouse, Brad Andrews. Judge Andrew's vision of a new courthouse for Long Beach was the driving force behind the building of a coalition of supporters for the project. This coalition would eventually grow to include a vast number of supporters including members of the public, the private sector and government. I am proud to count myself among the early members of this group.

Those early discussions about a new courthouse revolved around the understanding that under the existing state funding and procurement system, it would be 15-20 years before a new Long Beach courthouse could be built.

As this core group grew, it became clear that a public private partnership would be necessary to fund the project as the state could not expend the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to build the courthouse.

With support primarily from Assemblymember Hector De La Torre, and California State Senators Joe Dunn, Dick Ackerman and Don Perata, I introduced in the California State Budget Act of 2007, Senate Bill 77 which granted the authority for the Judicial Council and Administrative Office of the Courts to investigate the use of a public-private partnership in the development of the Long Beach project.

The Long Beach courthouse is the first to be built as a public- private funding partnership, with the developer, Long Beach Judicial Partners, paying for the upfront construction costs.

The new building is an example of what can be accomplished when the state, county and local governments work together to accomplish something that the whole community can be proud of. Our new courthouse is beautiful. It will act as a magnet for further development in the area for years to come while serving as a shining example of cooperation and innovation.

Mr. Speaker, the healthcare.gov Web site glitches are truly unacceptable, and they must be fixed as quickly as possible.

However, the majority party is not talking about fixing the Web site. They are fixated on criticizing the Affordable Care Act instead of helping the American public understand the act and receive the benefits of true affordable care.

Countless hours in committees, over 40 votes to repeal and delay, and millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on delaying, defunding and undermining this law. Throwing sticks into the spokes of the law will not help to make it better. I urge my colleagues to stop the obstruction and to be part of the solution.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, we are a country of interdependent States that share prosperity, challenges, and resources, united with a goal of a healthy economy supported by quality infrastructure.

At times, though, inequities in the collection and distribution of Federal resources create such an imbalance that one region is put at a distinct disadvantage. This is the case for California, which collects nearly one-third of the Nation's harbor maintenance taxes but receives less than 7 percent of the expenditures for port projects.

Mrs. Napolitano's amendment, had it been allowed to come to this floor, would have brought a measure of equity to this stark imbalance. I believe this was a missed opportunity for our Nation's ports.

Thank you, Congressman Takano.

Our economy, as you pointed out, is being held hostage by Speaker Boehner for his refusal to put forth a clean budget funding bill, what is called a ``continuing resolution,'' after we Democrats agreed to use his number. This is keeping us from really dealing with the real job of Congress also, which is to create jobs and to grow the economy.

I've been talking to people in my district to get some specific examples of some of the impacts of this irresponsible shutdown. Then I would like to also talk about some of the personal experiences that people have called me and told me about.

For example, in terms of one of my cities, the largest city in my district--the city of Long Beach--I will talk about the Small Business Administration, the SBA. In the 47th Congressional District, the SBA gives approximately $308,000 in loans per day. It has not given out one loan to small businesses in California's 47th Congressional District since the government was shut down.

What about Women, Infants, and Children, the WIC program? In Long Beach alone, 25,000 women and children use WIC vouchers. That is to keep people from starving. That is to provide food. That funding runs out this month, and there is no other money to provide any funding for the WIC program.

What about housing? There are 23,000 people in the city of Long Beach, and 6,600 housing units receive section 8 vouchers. They pay their rent once a month with these vouchers, and those apartments and those units get reimbursed by the government. There will be no payments to landlords in the city of Long Beach with section 8 vouchers.

But that is just kind of the overview. What about some of the specifics?

Over 20 years ago, a dear friend of mine opened a card shop right near our house in part of the revitalization. I don't want to mention his name, but he opens this shop in the city, works very well, part of the revitalization.

About a year and a half ago, he hurts his leg, goes to the hospital, and finds out that he has, unfortunately, ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease. This past December, he loses his business because he can no longer operate, and today he lies in his living room almost totally paralyzed and barely able to breath on oxygen.

His partner of 24 years--he and his partner adopted a child 19 years ago, who is now 19--his partner is employed by the Department of Defense. He was furloughed. So my dear friend and his partner do not know how they are going to pay their mortgage as he lies in his living room gasping for air. This is not the America that we know.

I have another constituent who is a young lieutenant in a local police agency, local law enforcement agency. After 2 years of applying and going through all the applications to enter the Federal Bureau of Investigations, an 11-week training program here in Washington, 211 of the most selected and highly chosen people throughout 48 States and 24 nations arrived last Monday and Tuesday--they closed down the FBI training facility. All the instructors were furloughed. He will lose his opportunity, the one opportunity to move forward that he had, because we and the Speaker will not bring up--this Congress cannot act, and the Speaker will not bring up a clean funding bill.

I will close by bringing up one other email that I received:

Currently, an exempt Federal employee working but not being

paid, I will be defaulting on my mortgage, unable to pay

several obligations. However, stay strong in your resolve. Do

not succumb to extortion. We, the people, are suffering. Your

colleagues are clueless and, apparently, heartless as well.

Please remind them who they work for--we, the people. I am a

civil servant. So are Congressmen and Congresswomen. It is

time for a wake-up call in the Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, as I awoke this morning and read my local newspaper, I realized that my dear friend Greg Taylor is lying in a medical bed, mostly paralyzed and barely able to breathe, as he copes with ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease.

This past December, Greg lost his business. If this is not bad enough, Greg's long-time partner of 28 years, Albert Sanchez, was just furloughed, a member of the Department of Defense. Although he may now return back to work, this stress is unbearable as they both struggle to make house payments. I failed to mention, they also have a 19-year-old son.

Today is the ninth day of this government shutdown. We still must do something to stop this shutdown.

Speaker Boehner, the Democrats have compromised by agreeing to your budget numbers. Now it is time for you to compromise by giving us a clean bill to vote for.

Let's stop this nightmare. I urge us to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly saddened by what has taken place the past few days with the closure of the government. We are participating in a downward spiral that has no end in sight. And we've lost the ability to relate to ordinary Americans. It's important to talk about how our actions, our inactions here in Washington affect the very people that we represent.

I want to talk to you today about two people who have been impacted tremendously by the actions of this House to close down government. Let me begin with one of my constituents,

who is an FAA safety inspector who has been furloughed. He has been furloughed, as I mentioned, from his job as a Federal Aviation Administration aviation inspector because we have not been able to keep the government open.

He reached out to me, and I have here his letter. He reached out to me and asked that I share his concerns with all Members of Congress and with the public at large. He made it clear to me that he was not here to talk about or to ask me to minimize the hardship that is going on in his family. Instead, he wrote that he wanted to express his concerns that the aviation inspectors will not be on the job to ensure the safety of U.S. travelers.

My constituent, a retired Army officer, veteran, wanted me to specifically talk about four safety functions that are now not being performed by FAA inspectors under this government shutdown. First, surveillance of aircraft, pilots, both domestic and foreign repair stations have been halted, leaving aircraft maintenance and aviation operations unchecked.

Second, in-flight cockpit inspections have been suspended, meaning that safety inspectors are not in the air overseeing aircraft, pilots, flight crewmembers, and in-flight operations and procedures.

Third, ramp inspections are not being conducted at airport gate facilities. This is not just here in Washington, but nationwide. This increases the probability of risks not being identified between destination points.

And fourth, even more frightening is that aviation safety inspectors are not on duty to respond in the event of an aircraft accident. How tragic this is.

But the second one even touched me more. Maybe not more, but certainly equally as much. This is about a young lieutenant at a local Los Angeles County police department who has worked for the past 2 years to be accepted into the prestigious FBI National Academy. This 11-week program, which is paid completely without Federal funds, was a once in a lifetime opportunity for him to pursue his dreams and contribute to the safety of our country.

The government shutdown Tuesday, however, crushed his dreams because this 11-week program began on Monday. All he wants do is to go to his classes, but he can't, because there are no instructors. They have been furloughed. This program has 212 of the brightest and most dedicated law enforcement officers from 24 countries and 48 States. If the government does not quickly reopen, they must go home, every single one of them.

Mr. Speaker, do not send these people home. We are witnessing political brinksmanship in its purest form. The American people have no time for these games. And I did not come here to participate in unnecessary political brinksmanship. I came to provide solutions and resolve problems. Instead of pitting Americans against Americans using this piecemeal approach that my colleagues across the aisle have decided to do to keep the government open, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to declare victory, use their own budget numbers, and vote for a clean CR that will last until mid-November. Don't hold our government hostage any longer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I appreciate his leadership in holding this vital conversation.

During my two decades in public service, I've heard many stories about how, when the economy slows down and when Americans fall on hard times, the American social safety net has helped our fellow Americans get back on their feet again.

I want to talk a little bit today, my dear friend, about what a constituent told me. I want to talk about his personal food stamp success, a story that really illustrates how SNAP is an investment in the future success of Americans.

This young man, whose name is Stefan, from Long Beach, recently wrote to me. He said:

My parents, after graduating from college in the mid-seventies, had to rely on food stamps for a period. They eventually went on to complete advanced degrees and began to have wonderful and productive jobs in the private sector and in higher education,

but they are both now quick to acknowledge the essential helping hand that food stamps--and also, for this young man, the WIC program for both his sister and him--played in helping them when times were tough.

Let us just remember what took place today, because these two Americans were low-income, childless adults at the time. It was for a very short period in their lives that they were low-income and also childless as adults. However, let us remember that this is one of the categories of people from whom the just-passed House bill would strip SNAP benefits. Stefan's parents, my friend, did not want to stay on food stamps, but food stamps provided them the ability to go on and become highly productive members of society because America invested in them through the SNAP program.

Contrary to the majority's claim, poor and unemployed Americans do not--and I repeat ``do not''--want to remain unemployed in order to receive a meager $1.40 per meal. That argument is specious. It paints a false picture of the masses of people who would rather have less than 6 quarters per meal than a paying job. This is not a rational choice. No one chooses the 6 quarters. These are people who need America's support and investment in order to survive.

My dear colleague from Pennsylvania, I agree that it's absolutely ludicrous.

On $1.40 per meal, you are not having lobster dinners. You are not having real dinners. You are barely surviving. These are proud people who want to make a contribution to society, who went through a difficult period. As this son pointed out, after their getting through this difficult time, they moved on after receiving these benefits, which they proudly talk about how much they helped them, and they are now productive members of our society and contribute greatly to this society. It is fallacious and silly to think that people choose to be on SNAP because they want to exploit the system.

I want to talk a little bit about who our Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill that just passed today would deny SNAP benefits to.

First of all, it would deny SNAP benefits to over 3.8 million of our fellow Americans in the year 2014. Now, who are these poor, unemployed, childless Americans that this bill largely targets? According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 40 percent are women; 34 percent are over 40 years of age; 50 percent are white; 30 percent are African American; 10 percent are Hispanic; and 5 percent are Native American; 40 percent live in suburban areas; 40 percent live in urban areas; and 20 percent live in rural areas.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that SNAP is an investment in America's workers, both current and prospective. To gut that investment--to let Americans go hungry--is to deny each of them an opportunity to become a contributing member of our society. This is not how America takes care of its people.

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

Mr. Chair, I was puzzled when I read the bill title, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, and then went on to read the bill text. Surely there must have been a mistake when drafting this bill. Strategic and critical minerals were certainly not meant to include sand, gravel, and clay.

But right now, section 3 of this bill is written so broadly that it would include very common nonstrategic and noncritical minerals--even going so far, as I mentioned, to encompass materials such as sand, gravel, and clay.

The Interior Department recently testified before my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee and confirmed that this is, in fact, exactly the case. The bill that we are now considering is written expansively beyond critical minerals.

The Interior Department testified:

This legislation would remove many of the environmental

safeguards for almost all kinds of hardrock mines on public

lands, bypassing evaluation of potential impacts under NEPA,

and limit public involvement in agency decisionmaking.

That's why I introduce an amendment that would simply narrow the bill's definition of purported strategic and critical minerals to actual strategic and critical minerals, as defined by the National Research Council.

Why is my amendment critical? It is because instead of ostensibly fast-tracking only strategic and critical minerals, which this bill I think does poorly, this legislation appears to be a guise for mining interests to loosen public review, judicial review, and environmental protections not just for strategic and critical minerals, but for all hardrock mining.

We could have a debate about how to ensure America's supply of strategic and critical minerals, but first we have to get the definition right.

I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I welcome those comments, but let's be real clear what I'm talking about. I am talking about eliminating a giveaway of almost all hard rock mining, to really defining what is strategic and critical as defined by the robust methodology in the National Research Council's report.

Now, what do I mean by a robust methodology? It says if we look at all the mining that we have, if we look at what we have to define as strategic, we have to look along two dimensions in a scientific way. We have to know: What is the impact of this mineral or this mining if there was a supply restriction? What would be the impact if there was a supply restriction? Would it impact defense? Would it impact national security? If it does have an impact, then it has a high rating on that.

Also, what about the supply risk? We need to measure, if we do not develop this mine at this place, are there other places that we can? If, in fact, a mineral has high supply risk, high impact, not only are those minerals defined now, but the Secretary of the Interior, using this methodology, will define. This clearly defines what is needed in terms of strategic and critical, and not just everything.

I remind you that right now we are loosening in the bill the environmental protections, public participation, judicial review for everything. We're doing it, as was pointed out, for national defense, he said, anything that meets national security requirements, for energy infrastructure, pipelines, refining capacity, power generation, domestic manufacturing--which includes everything, whether it's important or not--health care, telecommunications, transportation. What we're doing is we're gutting protections for everything, not those that are just needed.

I present a methodology which will allow a real clear definition, not just of what's in the bill now, but include a methodology that the Secretary of the Interior can include if the material is really needed to be mined.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Again, I introduced this amendment that would narrow the bill's definition to not what is purported to be strategic but actually what is strategic, that if we're going to give benefits, they must be strategic, and my amendment provides for an actual way of measuring that.

I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of Corporal Tibor Rubin of the United States Army.

Corporal Rubin was with the 1st Cavalry Division and received his Medal of Honor for extraordinary heroism in action from July 23, 1950 to April 20, 1953 in Korea.

While the Regiment was withdrawing, Corporal Rubin single-handedly held off enemy charges allowing the 8th Cavalry to complete its withdrawal. On October 30, 1950, a number of Chinese forces mounted an assault on Corporal Rubin's unit. Corporal Rubin maintained his firing position until he had exhausted all his ammunition. Although inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy, Corporal Rubin was eventually captured. While in a prison camp, however, the Corporal continued his resistance and selflessness by caring for his sick comrades.

It is for his unyielding courage and bravery that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Corporal Tibor ``Ted'' Rubin.

First, I want to say that I stand with you, and I'm so glad that you've raised this issue about the crisis that is occurring to working families in America, and, as was just pointed out, the tremendous crash and

burden on the middle class, who are rapidly becoming low-wage workers because of our policies in this country. I agree completely that the first step that we have to do is to raise the minimum wage and have that discussion and really provide and demonstrate that this Congress really cares about working people in America. That's our first thing.

But I'm also glad that you've given me an opportunity this afternoon to talk about one other issue that is not really directly related to this issue, and that has to do with environmental issues.

I just want to report to my colleagues that later this month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the leading international climate science body with over 195 member countries, is going to be releasing a report which will predict that the planet's average global temperature will increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius over the next century. Not only does this report issue new warnings about continued warming, but it asserts that the scientific community can now claim with 95 percent certainty that the warming is a byproduct of human activity.

Yet in this House of Representatives, the majority party continues to ignore the warnings of the scientific community. Over the past 2 years, this Congress has done absolutely nothing to address climate change. Republicans in the House voted to overturn EPA's scientific findings that climate change endangers health and the environment. They voted to block U.S. participation in international climate change negotiations, and they voted to stop the agencies from even preparing for the effects of climate change.

Just yesterday, Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee revealed that they are preparing to introduce legislation aimed at preventing EPA from limiting the amount of CO2 emitted from coal-fired power plants.

This is a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, we need to be moving ahead with policies aimed at encouraging alternative sources of energy, preparing for the worst effects of climate change. We need policies that are not written by the coal lobby. We must take action. And I must remind you, just as you raised these issues about the effect of the economy on our middle class and our lack of preparation of working families, that the people that are the most affected are the people that have the least ability to deal with climate change, and they are working Americans.

It is all related. We must protect working Americans, and the way we do it is to not only acknowledge some of the effects of climate change but really to give working families the tools that they need so that they can survive. And more than survive, so they can prosper in this society. That's what this is all about.

I thank you for raising this issue, and I am glad to show support.