Floor Statements

Thank you, Representative Perry. I really appreciate this opportunity to talk about the National Guard.

I first want to start by thanking Congressman Perry for his service in the Pennsylvania National Guard for some time. He is very committed to our country and committed to the Guard. I commend him for putting this on.

I also want to commend his chief of staff, who is seated right next to him, Colonel Lauren Muglia, who is also an active guardswoman; and I am very proud of her service at Fort Indiantown Gap in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, at the National Guard center up there, which is located in my congressional district--a very important asset to this country's homeland security and emergency preparedness, as well as any other missions that would be called upon them.

But I have a few things I just wanted to say about the Guard very, very quickly.

The Army's plan for the National Guard includes, frankly, drastic plans to slash the force structure, end strength and aviation assets, and will put the Guard on the back shelf as a strategic reserve. I am very concerned about this. And I know many of my colleagues are as well.

Congress has made a very significant investment in the Guard over the past 12-or-so years to train and equip the Guard as an operational reserve. At a time when the Pentagon must dig very deep for savings in their programs and agencies, the Guard remains a viable investment.

I say this as a member of the Appropriations Committee. We have to make a lot of very hard choices with respect to how we allocate our very limited resources. The Defense Department is coming under a great deal of stress.

But I want you to consider this: the most recent report of the Reserve Forces Policy Board, or RFPB, concluded that a National Guard member costs about one-third of their Active component counterpart. This would translate into nearly $2.6 billion in savings for every 10,000 positions shifted from a full-time to a part-time status.

What's more, the Army National Guard provides 32 percent of the Army's total personnel and 40 percent of its operating force, while only consuming 11 percent of the Army's budget. That represents a value to this country and, frankly, to the taxpayer.

I mean no disrespect to anybody, but I think we have to understand the real value of this National Guard to the taxpayer.

The Air National Guard provides 19 percent of the Air Force's total personnel and 30 to 40 percent of its overall fighter, tanker, and airlift capacity, at 6 percent of the Air Force budget.

Many of those Air National Guardsmen and pilots are very experienced and have many, many hours of service. So I think we should acknowledge how experienced those folks are.

In conclusion, I just wanted to say that not only does the Guard provide this operational asset to our overall national security and defense structure; but, just as important, it provides an emergency preparedness and homeland security function that they have to help us deal with all the time. In my State, it is usually floods and weather emergencies. The Guard plays an absolutely critical role to help us during those times.

So they have that operational component. They obviously contribute significantly in the wars, and we have seen this, too. By the way, if you have been to Afghanistan or Iraq--and I know some of our colleagues here have served there and paid very heavy prices--frankly, we have seen how well integrated our Guard and Reserve units are with regular Army and regular Air Force units. So I am very proud of that service.

Again, that dual mission--they can help us fight wars and they are certainly a critical component to our over homeland security and emergency preparedness strategy in the country.

With that, I thank Congressman Perry for his leadership on this issue, and I really appreciate that he put this Special Order together.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this omnibus legislation today for a number of reasons.

First, for the fourth year in a row, we are actually cutting overall discretionary spending. That is significant. Spending levels will be lower than they were for the first time since fiscal year 2009. Again, that is very, very significant.

It is important that we are not passing another continuing resolution which, frankly, wastes a lot of money. In this legislation, we are putting money where it should be and cutting money where we must. That is important.

Finally, I want to say that this legislation will help bring about greater predictability, stability, and certainty not only for the budget process, but the appropriations process, and, most important of all, to the American people. Many people are watching our actions. It will create a better environment for business investment and job creation. Again, this is extraordinarily important.

Finally, we roll back some onerous regulations, those on incandescent light bulbs, to fill material. This is extremely important for many of us.

Finally, we also fix the issue with the military pensions where we are making sure that those who are disabled and survivors will not be impacted in any way by the recently enacted budget agreement.

So for all of these reasons, I urge support of the underlying legislation and commend the chairman and the ranking member and all those involved with this process for a job well done. I support the bill.

Thank you. I would like to also join my colleagues tonight in support of Representative Barletta's very important legislation to help clarify the fact that the volunteer firefighters should not be counted as full-time equivalents under the employer mandate under the health care law, more commonly known as ObamaCare.

It has been very clear to me, after having meetings with many of my friends in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, where a number of firefighters from different fire companies came to speak to me on this issue, that the potential impact of this idea of counting volunteer firefighters as full-time equivalents will really have a very negative impact on public safety in that particular community, where volunteer firefighters really do provide the bulk of the fire service, as is the case in much of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and throughout the country.

It is clear to me that the health care law is riddled with so many problems. We always knew that this employer mandate was going to be a problem where it says that if you have more than 50 employees you are going to have to provide health care benefits after the first 30 for those working more than 30 hours a week.

I don't think anybody in their wildest imagination would have ever thought that a volunteer fire company would have been impacted by this. It raises a whole host of questions too: Well, are those volunteer firefighters part of the municipal workforce? There are all sorts of questions that we simply don't know the answers to.

It is my hope that we never have to address the Barletta legislation, as important as it is. I am hopeful that the IRS will come to a ruling at some point to clarify the fact that these volunteers are not full- time equivalents for the purpose of the health care law in the employee mandate. That would be the easiest way out. Absent an IRS ruling, well then let's pass this bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I am delighted that my good friend and colleague Lou Barletta, we share a county, Dauphin County, in the Harrisburg area. We share that county. This is also a very big issue in that part of the State.

It is important that we move forward with this legislation in the event that the IRS fails to do its job and provide the clarity and the guidance that so many of our volunteers depend on. More important than the volunteers is the people they serve. These volunteer firefighters are protecting us and this employer mandate will only make that task that much more difficult and deny fire service, unfortunately, to too many people across the country in the Commonwealth.

With that, I commend my friend, Mr. Barletta, for his very important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Congressman Matt Cartwright (PA-17) to honor the Martin Guitar Company in Nazareth, Pennsylvania, on the occasion of their 180th anniversary. For nearly two centuries, Martin Guitar has contributed to the musical culture of America by producing some of the finest acoustic instruments on the market.

The story of Martin Guitar's beginning is uniquely American. The company's founder, Christian Frederick Martin, Sr., was born in Markneukirchen, Saxony (now Germany) on 31 January 1796. He became an apprentice guitar maker at the age of 15, and after showing much promise in his early years, opened his own shop. After struggling to run a successful business among Europe's warring trade guilds, Martin determined to seek his fortune in the United States. In 1883, he set up a modest shop in New York City. After five years of hard work, Martin was able to sell his humble store and purchase eight acres of land in Nazareth, Pennsylvania, where the company continues to grow and thrive today.

The Martin brand and production line grew steadily through the latter half of the 19th century, during which Martin was responsible for numerous advancements in guitar design, such as a bracing system for guitar stops that is still widely used today. The marriage of innovation and craftsmanship was responsible for creating instruments that would become synonymous with quality among professional and amateur musicians alike.

When C.F. Martin, Sr., passed away in 1873 he left the business to his son, Christian Frederick Martin, Jr. This was the beginning of a proud tradition of family leadership that has continued to this day, with C.F. Martin IV, being the sixth member of his family to run the business. As a 21st century company, Martin Guitar has made a concerted effort to source wood in an environmentally sustainable manner, leading the industry in the acceptance of alternative wood species. Although times have changed, Martin Guitar's commitment to producing outstanding musical instruments has not. Today, Martin Guitar is a pillar of the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania, a major employer in the region, and a shining example of American workmanship.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we would like to extend our sincerest congratulations to the Martin Guitar Company and the Martin Family on 180 years of excellence and wish them all the best in the years ahead.

I too want to the take a moment to reflect upon the life and service and dedication of Bill Young. Much has been said about him already this evening, and I too, like many, look back at that corner and want to see Bill Young there, but obviously he is not with us.

Before calling Florida his home, Chairman Young was actually born in Harmarville, Pennsylvania, in Allegheny County in western Pennsylvania, that area best known for steel and coal. A lot of tough people came out of that area, and certainly Bill Young, I think, really had a lot of the character traits I associate with people there. He could be very tough when he needed to be, very firm. He was just like steel.

Also, we should not forget about his compassion. He was a kind man, a gentle man, a patient man. I would often ask him questions or make a request of him from time to time, and he always listened to me very patiently. He had served here for 22 terms. He didn't have to spend a whole lot of time with me, but he did, and I always appreciated that. He was a great mentor to me and to many other Members here. It was a pleasure to serve with him.

There are so many other things about Chairman Young, too. It has been mentioned his support of our troops, particularly our wounded warriors, and the impact they had on him and the impact he had on those wounded warriors.

When you get beyond the defense and veterans policy, though, Chairman Young played an integral role in creating a national registry for bone marrow donors back in 1986, and that registry helped save more than 50,000 lives over the years.

Again, not having known Bill Young as long as some of my colleagues, I just wanted to say what an extraordinary privilege it was for me to serve with him, to know him, to call him a friend, and really to be one of my mentors here in the House.

My deepest thoughts and prayer go out to Beverly and the entire Young family during a difficult time.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the Senate compromise legislation being considered to end this unnecessary government shutdown and futile exercise in brinkmanship. This legislation reopens the government and prevents a catastrophic default and credit downgrade that would spur another recession.

I am genuinely pleased that the cooler heads have finally prevailed. However, it is very disappointing that we are in this situation, that after more than 2 weeks of a government shutdown and on the eve of a default on our government's obligations, we have finally reached an agreement.

This legislation must be supported, but it should not be celebrated, no high-fives or spiking the football. It is a temporary government funding bill and a short-term debt limit increase. It is not a win for anyone, particularly the institution of Congress or the Presidency, for that matter.

The bill represents the conclusion of a difficult period, from which I hope that many can draw important lessons. I hope that this sad episode will result in a newfound commitment and intensity for the governing majority in Congress to make the difficult decisions that must be made to keep the government functioning while addressing the many problems facing our country, including the budget deficit, the Nation's out-of-control debt, and the many challenges presented by the health care law, or ObamaCare.

For many months and particularly throughout the last 2 weeks, I have worked tirelessly with colleagues from both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers to find an agreement to break the impasse.

I particularly want to thank Representative Ron Kind, Senators Susan Collins and Joe Manchin, and the many other Members who participated in the many discussions. I believe these conversations have laid a strong foundation that we can build on to arrive at agreements on many of the major issues that need to be addressed in this country.

I urge my colleagues not only to vote in favor of this legislation tonight but to join with those of us who share an affirmative obligation to govern and who seek bipartisan solutions to the challenges facing our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about this issue, as are many of my colleagues. I strongly support this resolution by Messrs. Pitts, Davis, Goodlatte, and others for a whole host of reasons, but let's be very clear about a few things here.

This country consumes more sugar than it produces. We must import sugar, whether we like it or not. We also have to deal with some other very basic facts.

I listened with intensity to the gentleman from Minnesota, a good friend, who talked about American Crystal losing money. Well, the answer is not to bail them out with our tax dollars. We have seen enough of that around here. It is time to stop those types of unnecessary bailouts.

We also heard my good friend from Texas, who, I was relieved today, did not complain about sugar companies making money or confectioners making money, as if profits are something that is evil. We want these companies to make money. We have had 4 years of high sugar prices, and that simply incentivizes more Mexican imports. It provides more incentives for those imports.

But let's look at the numbers. The current program is a remnant of the Depression era. It puts 600,000 American jobs in the food industry at risk. Between 1997 and 2011, nearly 127,000 jobs were lost in segments of the food and beverage industries that use sugar in their operations. And, yes, Hershey is located in my district.

The current sugar program hits American consumers and businesses with $3.5 billion of extra costs every year. The CBO projects that the Sugar-to-Ethanol Program, known as the Feedstock Flexibility Program, will cost taxpayers $239 million over the next several years, including $51 million this year alone. Some analysts project costs of up to $100 million this year and $250 million over the next 2 years combined.

When sugar prices drop below a certain level, the Federal Government buys that sugar and then sells it at a loss to the ethanol producers. The taxpayers are abused twice. When is enough enough? It is unacceptable and wrong to call on the American people to support the current sugar program, not only with their hard-earned consumer dollars, but with their tax dollars as well.

Yes, we are having debates around this place right now about the government shutdown and the debt ceiling. The point is we need to get on with this. Let's protect the American people, show them we can do our jobs. I ask my colleagues to reform, not repeal, the current sugar program, but reform it. Let's save the American consumers money in the midst of this tough economy. Let's show the American people we can act responsibly on their behalf.

I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say very clearly: I certainly oppose shutting down the government. I certainly oppose defaulting on this country's obligations. We have an obligation to govern; I take that very seriously. I do support the underlying bill under consideration here today, specifically because of the repeal of the medical device tax, which in my district is real.

The medical device tax is stifling innovation; it is costing us jobs; and it is raising costs, which unfortunately appears to be the health care law trifecta--raising costs, stifling innovation, and destroying jobs.

Specifically, one company in my district, with nearly 2,000 employees, said that there are no raises for their employees because of this tax this year. Another small company called me up. He makes prosthetic limbs for many folks, including troops who come back from the wars. He said, you know, we've been in business for 100 years; we have a little over 50 people. We're probably not going to make it because of this. They need our help. They're crying out for help.

Look, I understand we have to keep the government open, but we know that 79 Senators are on record in support of repealing this tax, Republican and Democrat, States from Minnesota to Massachusetts to New Jersey to Pennsylvania. This is a very big deal, but we need to do it.

I also know there is a delay of the law in this bill. I fully expect that when this is sent over to the Senate, the Senate will likely pull that out, but they will likely seriously consider the medical device tax. Let's get that done. It's imperative for us to do so. Again, so many people's livelihoods are dependent on this.

We make things in this country; we make medical devices in this country; and we ought to make sure that we don't do anything to harm them. Many of these manufacturers are going to be moving operations overseas. We know this. Let's not let it happen.

America has an advantage in this area; let's try to maintain it. A 2.3 percent tax really is harming these small startup companies that need access to capital. It's going to be much harder for folks. I can take you to the University of Pennsylvania and show you startups that are helping us deal with concussions, that are not going to be able to bring their product to market.

At this point I would again ask for support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us here to govern. Now is the time to govern. In a few short days, the government will shut down unless the House acts.

I oppose ObamaCare, and I oppose shutting down the government. We had a vote in the House. The Senate will soon have a vote. They will, in all likelihood, strip out the ``defund ObamaCare'' language and send us back a bill.

I believe it is time for us to stop playing political games. I believe it is time for us in a bipartisan manner to vote to fund the government and end this brinksmanship debacle that has been going on for the past few days. I feel very strongly about this. Moreover, the American people expect us to make sure that services are provided. I want to make sure the troops are paid and that the people who are in need of services actually receive them.

There will be more opportunities to debate these issues going forward, particularly as it relates to the debt ceiling, but for now, fund the government, and do it in a bipartisan way.

As they say in Texas, ``Get 'er done.''

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support today of this legislation. I also want to extend my thanks to Chairman Hastings, to Mr. Holt, to Ranking Member DeFazio, and the former ranking member, Senator Markey, all for their leadership, as well as our friends in the Senate, Senators Wyden and Murkowski. This is truly an example of a good bipartisan piece of legislation done in a bicameral manner. I think we can all take pride in the fact that Congress can actually get things done when we put our minds to it.

While I had some reservations regarding the initial House bill, due to some potential issues of potential contract violations, this bill before us, H.R. 527, fairly addresses those concerns. I tried to address those concerns in the previous bill. I also want to thank Ms. Esty and Mr. Higgins from New York for their strong support in that effort.

Again, passing this legislation will ensure continued access to the Nation's helium supply for American businesses and researchers. As has been stated, if no action is taken before October 1, the Bureau of Land Management will be forced to shutter the Federal Helium Reserve, putting at risk thousands of jobs of hardworking Americans, particularly those in the manufacturing sector.

A steady supply of helium is absolutely essential in manufacturing items such as MRI scanners, computer chips, and fiber optic cables. We need to make sure that we can continue in those pursuits.

Also, it is important to many refiners, like in my district Air Products and Chemicals, in Ms. Esty's district Praxair, Linde and others, who are also very much involved with making sure this helium gets to the marketplace and to the end users.

Today's action will ensure that these advanced and high-tech manufacturers will not lose access to over one-third of the global supply of helium at a time when a helium shortage is already in place.

Again, I want to say thanks to everybody involved--Mr. Holt and Mr. Hastings--for their patience for listening and for coming up with a very good solution to a very important problem.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for organizing this Special Order this evening to discuss the crisis in Syria. In my view, it is really indisputable that Bashar al-Assad is a villain who has committed heinous, mortal crimes with the use of chemical weapons against his own people.

What is debatable, however, is America's policy on Syria and the broader Middle East. I have raised the issue of Syria with this administration at numerous hearings as a member of the Appropriations Committee. I have also worked with Syrians in my own community, and I have the largest population of Syrian Americans of any Member of Congress in the United States. I have met with them. They have brought to my attention issues of abducted Christian archbishops who have been abducted in Syrian and whose whereabouts, unfortunately, are unknown. There is a lot of work going on to try to secure their release, but that said, you can understand their concern for that part of the world.

I have spent time, too, in meetings with America's wonderful friend, King Abdullah of Jordan, who has also shared his perspective on the plight of the Syrian people. But what I have observed most of all is a very sad observation, and that is the friends of the Syrian regime-- Iran, Russia and Hezbollah--are far more committed to President Assad than the friends of the Syrian people--and that would be the West and the Arab League--are to these moderate opposition forces.

I had asked Secretary Hillary Clinton--former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--back in February, 2012, if the administration was prepared to provide some type of material support to moderate secular opposition groups given that it looked like Assad's government was very weak, there was a popular uprising, and it seemed there might be a better outcome. She was pretty clear with me at the time that she thought providing light arms would be of little help to the opposition in the face of Assad's substantial military, with all his air assets, artillery and armor. To put it bluntly and short, she really didn't want to get too involved at that time. We really didn't have much of a discussion about the benefits to America, its friends and allies and their interests, if Iran's influence in the region were substantially weakened through the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.

I thought at the time that the President was maybe more concerned about maintaining his reputation as a Nobel Peace Prize winner antiwar candidate than actually developing what I thought would be a more practical response for Syria. It just seemed that inaction and indecision were, and frankly today, remain the order of the day.

In the meantime, let's fast forward from a year and a half, 2 years ago to today: al-Nusra and other radical Islamist terrorist organizations have rushed into this vacuum and filled the void, so to speak. So really today there aren't any good public policy outcomes for the United States. The time for the United States to more constructively intervene and to reach a more efficacious resolution, the time for that has long passed.

So here we are, over these last 2\1/2\ years, this Syrian civil war has descended into both a sectarian and proxy conflict, and these events have moved well beyond the United States ability to control with Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia fully committed to the Assad government.

I think we all know, as Mr. Fortenberry knows, we know we have a very war-weary population which is not going to support a half-hearted, poorly thought out military strike which will only expose the United States and its friends to greater risks, including the possibility of a broader regional conflagration. This could include more chemical weapons attacks against the Syrian people and possibly Israel, potential cyber attacks on American critical infrastructure in both the financial services and energy sectors, an unleashed Hezbollah, and other unforeseen, asymmetrical responses.

I am deeply concerned about this, as we all should be. But we can't just look at Syria in isolation; we have to look at it in the much broader context of the Middle East. Unfortunately, and I'm going to have to be a bit critical of the President at this time, witness how President Obama turned his back on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011 after 2 weeks of uprisings. Whatever his faults, whatever his shortcomings, Hosni Mubarak was a loyal, 30-year friend of the United States--a lesson learned by our friends and our allies throughout the region and throughout the world.

Of course, prior to that incident there was the Green Revolution in Iran where we saw a lot of very brave people in Iran stand up to the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran. We witnessed that, and it seemed this administration could barely utter words of support to these very brave people who stood up to a tyrant, Ahmadinejad, who made all sorts of reckless and inflammatory and hateful statements against the West and particularly Israel, and so I was just astounded that the administration could barely utter words of support.

Then, of course, we learned about leading from behind in Libya. Actually, leading from behind the French and the British in Libya, to be precise. I was one of only a handful of Republicans in the House to support the authorization for force in Libya--after the fact, but I supported it. So I'm not an isolationist. I believe that we have an important role internationally with the United States, and we have to be constructively engaged.

But let's move forward to 2013. Bashar al-Assad's government launches chemical attacks against his own people. I believe the intelligence is clear that he did it, or his government did it, so I'm not debating those facts, what appear to be facts. But we witnessed these chemicals attacks in both the late spring and again just a few weeks ago in August, these chemical attacks. We witnessed the trampling of the red line set down by the President not once but twice, maybe more than that for all I know. And now over 100,000 Syrians have been killed. What is the President's strategy for Syria? I couldn't explain it to anybody if they asked. He talked about pinpricks or his administration has talked about pinpricks, shots across the bow, a military action of days not weeks, and no intention to topple Assad or to degrade his military capacity to make war on his own people, for that matter. I'm learning a lot about what we will not do, but I'm not really sure what we're trying to do or trying to accomplish. So a very limited air strike to punish Mr. Assad is not going to alter the outcome of the Syrian civil war. What is the point or purpose? What is the clarity of mission?

In my view, America's national interest is really twofold in Syria. One, we want to limit Iranian influence in the region, and, two, the other issue deals with securing those chemical weapons, frankly, from both the Assad government and the radical elements of that opposition who would probably be just as inclined to use them. So much so that King Abdullah of Jordan came to Members of Congress to express his real concern about al-Nusra forces getting too close, dangerously close to a chemical site in southern Syria, and that was just a few months ago.

So now we also witnessed, too, there really is not a coalition of the willing to tackle Mr. Assad's crimes. It seems more a coalition of the unwilling. The United Nations really doesn't seem anywhere to be found, although in recent days, in the last 24 hours we're hearing there might be some discussion with the Russians about some kind of a resolution on securing those sites, but the U.N. is really nowhere to be found. NATO does not seem to be fully engaged at all, although maybe some members are supportive. And, of course, we've witnessed what the British Parliament did to Prime Minister Cameron in rebuking him. And so the British, our beloved friends and allies, are not going to be engaged in this one,

and so we're pretty much on our own. Again, I've called this a coalition of the unwilling. And so I think it would behoove the United States not to move in what appears to be almost a unilateral manner.

I have read, too, recently, that some of the Arab governments, Saudi Arabia and others, would be willing to help pay for some of this mission should we strike. You know, on the one hand, I appreciate that. On the other, the United States military is really not a mercenary force for anyone. A lot of folks may be encouraging us or cheering us on, but it doesn't seem they are willing to put people in harm's way. So I think we have to keep that in mind as we talk about this.

I'm going to conclude in a moment, but I was one of the folks who said it is always important for the President to consult with Congress prior to taking any kind of military action. It's important in our system, although I don't believe the President necessarily needs a congressional authorization for what he has called a very limited airstrike. But now that he has asked me to engage in this debate, I owe the President fair consideration of his policy in Syria, whatever it may be.

Again, I said call me skeptical; now you can call me outright opposed. I have said from day one that the President didn't seem to have his heart in this impending military action. He was looking for a way out after the U.N., the U.K., and NATO, a lot of our friends were just not willing to go along, and then the President turned to Congress as a last resort for an authorization where he has, of course, run into very, very heavy skepticism. I just did see any Churchillian resolve in our Commander in Chief. Our men and women in uniform deserve a Commander in Chief who is full-throated in support of what is likely to become a very dangerous military operation and could possibly spiral out of control. But more importantly, we have to be cognizant of the potential consequences and ramifications for that action.

I think the President of the United States owes that to the American people, to make it clear what his policy is, what his mission is, not what he's not going to do, but what he intends to do. After the President really threw this issue to Congress, we witnessed President Assad's jubilant supporters celebrating in the Syrian streets, and I'm sure the corridors of power in Tehran and Moscow, and it seems now that America's friends and allies watched this mystifying failure of Presidential leadership unfold with dismay.

So have our constituents. We have all received these calls. In my view, and I am really sad to say this, Barack Obama may have diminished his own Presidency in the process, but more problematically, diminished America's standing in the world among both friend and foe alike, and that's a real tragedy.

You know, in this upcoming vote in Congress, if it's to come at all at this point, it is really not so much a vote on authorizing a military strike or military intervention in Syria. The stakes have grown beyond that. It's much more a vote of confidence on the President's Syrian and broader Middle East policy. On that score, I have no confidence.

And I just wanted to say one last thing. I mentioned I have a very large Syrian population in my community, Syrian Americans. They're great Americans. They've been part of my community for a long time, largely Christian, Antioch Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian and other denominations.

They are scared. I think they know what Bashar Assad is, and many are very uncomfortable with what he is. And on the other hand, they have seen al-Nusra and al Qaeda, and are absolutely terrified of that operation.

And so they're caught in this sectarian crossfire. They don't want to be there. They're worried about atrocities, grievous atrocities being committed against the Christian people of Syria.

We just witnessed the other day, there was a story of a small village, I believe not too far from Damascus, where the language of Aramaic is spoken; I guess one of the few places in the world where it is still spoken.

Why is that significant?

Well, if you're a Christian, you know that Aramaic was the language that Jesus Christ spoke. And to know that this ancient community--and of course much of Syria's an ancient civilization--to know that these people could be under attack when you find out that al-Nusra forces had entered and intervened, and I hope they've been cleared out.

But that said, you think about this, and we worry about the history of mankind and the history of the Christian tradition is at risk here, and potentially a great risk of extermination.

And we've witnessed this in Egypt too. I mean, there are lessons to be learned from Egypt. When Mubarak fell, the Christian population, the Coptic Christian population of Egypt, became very vulnerable. We know that--extremely vulnerable. Atrocities committed against Christians, desecration of the churches, burning, other terrible things have happened, and I fear that we might see similar, if not worse, things happen in Syria.

So whatever this country chooses, whatever course of action this country chooses to pursue, I don't believe that a military intervention right now by the United States would advance America's policy objectives; and frankly, I don't think it would change the trajectory of the Syrian civil war.

People have said, well, doing nothing at all is the worst of all possibilities, the worst of all options. Well, I would argue that if we're not certain what this limited, so-called limited military intervention will bring, if we're very unclear about that, then I would argue that no action is better than a limited action which may not do much of anything to alter the course of this civil war. So I think we have to be very cautious and very restrained.

I do appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska allowing me this opportunity to speak on this issue, and for his leadership, and for allowing me this time.

Will the gentleman yield?

It seems that the policy of the United States and Syria, since the beginning of the uprising in Syria, has largely been one of inaction and detachment. And, in many respects, we outsourced the arming of the opposition forces to many of our good friends: the Turks, the Qataris, the Saudis, and others. And whether we like it or not--and we don't like it in many respects--many of the folks who were armed were people who don't share our interests and values, the al-Nusra forces in particular.

But there are moderate forces, and if the United States had demonstrated some leadership early in this, during that conflict, to help identify moderate secular opposition forces, there probably could have been multi-ethnic again and secular, it could have been Kurdish and Christian and moderate Sunni, that might have helped bring about a more legitimate or a better opposition force that the international community would be rallying around.

But that, unfortunately, has not happened, and now you read about large swaths of territory in Syria dominated by some opposition forces that have been rather radicalized; and that's unfortunate because there are many elements of the Free Syrian Army, of course, who really do want to try to bring about more representative government and, I think, would embrace the values that you and I hold dear.

But, you know, time has passed. Time has passed, and I just don't see a good outcome, as I stated earlier, at this point. And I just wish--I think the American people understand this intuitively.

And it also speaks to NATO. What's happening with NATO?

It's a great organization. I believe in NATO. It's a collective defense organization. I believe in its military value and its political value. But it seems, since the end of the Cold War, maybe it's gone a little bit adrift.

And Turkey has been a loyal friend and NATO ally for decades. They are directly affected by this conflict in Syria. They may make demands of us and NATO at some point, and we're going to have to think that through, as policymakers, what we would do if our good friends, the Turks, make a request of us, and certainly our good friends in Jordan.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to say one more thing. You know, the President has said that this red line that was crossed was not his red line, but the international community's red line. Ninety-eight percent of the world has opposed chemical weapons use and has agreed to the various conventions on chemical weapons.

Unfortunately, 98 percent of the world isn't prepared to help us in this intervention. We're on our own, and I just wanted to point that out.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for his kind comments about his experiences with various folks who are in Syria.

I just wanted to say one other thing too. This past Sunday I attended a church service at my own church that has a large Syrian community; and a woman made a presentation at the church who represents the Presbyterian Church of Lebanon and Syria, and spoke in my church in very moderate, secular tones about why she thought it was not in anyone's interest for the United States to intervene at this point in the Syrian civil war.

It was a very compelling statement. Then, after that church service, I stopped by another at St. George Antioch Orthodox Church after their services had ended and met with some of the parishioners whose family members are over there, in many cases, and some told me their family members had been killed. And there was a lot of crying and wailing and deep sadness. It's quite emotional for them, as you can well imagine. They feel so strongly that this intervention is only going to make the plight of the Christians that much more dire and difficult in Syria and that it could lead to their ultimate extermination in many cases. This was their term, not mine.

That's how serious this is to them in a country, that I believe, the last I checked, is somewhere between 15 to 20 percent Christian, although the numbers are diminishing, given this turmoil. We've seen that in many Middle Eastern countries. The Christian communities are just not able to endure in this type of environment.

So I appreciate your interest in this issue, Mr. King, and thank you for allowing me to speak. Keep up the good work.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2218.

I heard some comments today about coal ash. Let me be very clear: coal ash maybe at one point was energetic, but the coal ash we're discussing here today is inert. It's a lot like dirt, to be quite honest. As a cochair of the Congressional Cement Caucus, I have the largest cement producing district in America.

The cement and concrete folks, the industry, is by far the Nation's largest recycler of coal combustion residuals, or CCRs or coal ash as it's better known. Each year, more than 11 million tons of coal ash is recycled in the production of concrete. So this is essential to our manufacturing sector. Domestic manufacturers typically reuse an additional 3 million tons of coal ash annually as a raw material in cement production. The coal ash used in the process serves as a substitute for key ingredients in cement, which would otherwise be mined.

Without H.R. 2218, the EPA would be able to classify coal ash as a hazardous material, which in turn would put an end to this very useful recycling. Even the continued regulatory uncertainty generated by the stalled EPA rulemaking would dramatically inhibit the recycling of coal ash in domestic cement and concrete production.

This recycling includes all kinds of infrastructure products, including our roads, bridges, homes, schools, and other critical structures. Coal ash continues to be recycled in a safe and responsible manner. Whatever issues there have been with coal ash, they have largely been related to storage. This bill thoroughly addresses coal ash storage issues, which is really where we should be focused.

Again, H.R. 2218 provides the clarity needed by top recyclers to continue their efforts and to potentially increase coal ash recycling. So, again, I ask my colleagues to support passage of this important piece of legislation that will ensure the beneficial reuse of coal ash. A ``yes'' vote is the right vote. It is pro-manufacturing. Vote for the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, do you see this trophy before us? We've been on this House floor many times to celebrate baseball victories, football victories, or, I should say, baseball debacles in our case. But we celebrate a lot of things, also golf.

I want to point out that we had a wonderful experience last week, Thursday night, with the Washington Kastles, who are seated up in the Members' gallery. We had a wonderful bipartisan game of tennis between, obviously, the Members, Republican and Democrat intermixed, as well as members of the media.

I'm pleased to report to you that there were two teams, the Stars and the Stripes. My colleagues here, Mr. Watt, Ms. Edwards, and Shelley Moore Capito, were on the Stripes, and I'll introduce the Stars team in a moment. Mr. Bishop will do that. We had a wonderful game.

We should also let you know, too, that members of the media played. I should let you know that part of Stripes' team included David Gregory of ``Meet the Press.'' He's a bigger problem on the tennis court than he is in an interview on ``Meet the Press.'' I also want you to know he's got a big serve. You've got to watch him. Our coach was Leander Paes, who's seated in the gallery, a professional. Our team also included former Senator John Breaux; Shelley Moore Capito, a Division I player from Duke. Did I say, ``Go Lehigh''? That's basketball. Sorry. There was also Peter Cook from Bloomberg; myself; Donna Edwards, who received the Good Sportsmanship Award; Mel Watt, who I must say was one of the most feisty players I've seen; Mark Ein, the owner of the Washington Kastles, who's also here; David Gregory; Jonathan Karl from ABC News; and Hans Nichols from Bloomberg--a very competitive individual, I might add. It was a great time had by all.

I know it's never appropriate to gloat when you win, but we'll do it anyway since we're Members of Congress. Here's our trophy. Stripes beat the Stars.

At this time, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Now I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

I now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Reclaiming my time, I just wanted to say, in conclusion, it was a wonderful cause. Many charities were supported.

I should also let you know the Washington Kastles are playing tonight down at the waterfront. Get down there and watch them. It's not tennis anyone; it's tennis everyone. So get out there and do it.

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

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Madam Chairman, I must take exception to some of the remarks I've heard here today. This amendment is absolutely necessary for this country, for the consumer. We are talking about saving consumers $3.5 billion a year and saving 20,000 manufacturing jobs.

I must strenuously object to those who say the price of sugar is so low. Let me tell you what is going to happen. When the price of sugar drops below a certain level, the Federal Government will buy that excess sugar, then sell it to ethanol producers at a loss. The taxpayer and the consumer is royally abused twice.

This is protectionism at its worse. We all know it. It is time to reform this program.

This is not a zero-zero policy as the proponents claim. This is going to cost taxpayers $239 million over the next several years. That is according to CBO. $80 million of taxpayer-funded bailout could come later this year.

This issue is about protecting manufacturing jobs, making sure that we have something closer to a market-based price.

I represent Hershey, Pennsylvania. I just heard a statement saying, no sugar packets handed out to restaurants are free. Well, that cost is built into the meal that you eat. It is absurd. It is absolutely absurd. We are losing jobs to countries that have more market-based sugar policies.

I urge strong support for the Pitts-Goodlatte-Davis-Blumenauer amendment.