Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to also thank the ranking member, my friend from Oregon. We disagree on this bill, as it will become evident through this debate today, but she has always been respectful and professional, and I appreciate that.

The issues we are debating today are important, and the decisions we will make today are significant. There is a process that is broken, and it is through this bill that we cannot only improve that process, but also restore trust between the American people and the Federal Government.

If I could reemphasize what I just said, the process is broken. This is an opportunity for us to restore trust between the American people and the Federal Government that has fostered so much distrust of late.

Established by Congress in 1978, the EPA's Science Advisory Board, or what we refer to as SAB, is intended to provide meaningful, balanced, and independent reviews of the science conducted and used by the Agency. Its members are selected by the EPA Administrator, and it plays an important role in reviewing everything from the EPA's research budget to individual chemical assessments.

This panel is indispensable in critically reviewing the underlying science of virtually all major EPA regulatory activities. That is a tall order in recent years, especially given the fact that the Agency has pursued an overreaching, economically threatening agenda, creating an environment where politics and policies have taken the wheel from unbiased science.

This bill contains basic, good government changes and draws upon noncontroversial provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee handbook, the EPA's own Peer Review Handbook, the National Academies' committee composition and conflict of interest policy, and even recommendations from the Science Committee testimony and other outside groups.

It has widespread support from groups such as the National Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, the American Chemistry Council, the American Gas Association, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, Portland Cement Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, and I could go on and on with a long list of councils and associations that support this legislation.

It makes important clarifying changes to the scope of SAB's purview and institutes commonsense reforms. I would like to emphasize this. You are going to hear this again and again today: commonsense reforms to improve transparency. How can you argue against that? It specifically builds upon the bipartisan agreement made to the SAB in the farm bill.

H.R. 1422 would also facilitate meaningful public participation across all of the standing committees. Once again, let me emphasize that: it facilitates meaningful public participation. And let's be clear. The transparency and the public participation concerns addressed in this bill are not without merit.

For example, in my own experience, during a hearing in the Science Committee last year, I was alarmed to hear from both SAB members and the chair of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and a State official testify that EPA's science advisers virtually never respond to public comments and, in many cases, they don't even read these public comments. Imagine the arrogance of a government committee that pretends to seek public

comment and promises to consider those comments, and then to learn that they don't even read them, let alone consider what has been said. This bill would change that.

This bill also provides clarity to the SAB member selection and disclosure process. Despite an existing requirement that these panels be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,'' EPA has systematically excluded State, local, and tribal entities and private sector scientists from serving as advisers.

For example, last year EPA announced a new Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel. Even though dozens of people with recent and direct experience with oil and gas technical developments were nominated, the EPA excluded nearly every one of them from serving on the panel.

There are also a number of other unsettling Agency trends about how the EPA selects its supposedly independent advisers. For instance, according to the Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of the members of EPA's chartered SAB and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee have directly received grants from the Agency, and that is only since the year 2000. These advisers served as principal or co- investigators for EPA grants, totaling approximately $140 million. The EPA also frequently chooses panelists whose research is directly or indirectly under review.

And finally, in addition, many of the SAB panelists have clearly taken sides or made public pronouncements on issues they are advising about. For example, roughly 40 percent of the current panel members reviewing the science behind upcoming EPA ozone standards have already made statements that the regulations should be more stringent.

The issues identified in this bill seem to many as too specific and diving into the weeds, but credible peer review is critical to everything the EPA does. We may not be able to control all the EPA's regulatory overreach, but guaranteeing that there is an independent check whose sole focus is to provide unbiased, independent science is essential to the process.

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

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

Before I recognize the gentleman from Texas, I would like to respond briefly, if I could, to the minority Member, some of her comments regarding this bill.

The bill very clearly does not allow for the SAB to be stacked, to use her phrase, with the industry experts. I have the bill before me. It is only a couple of pages long. It is very simple. I would ask anyone to show me the language where it allows for the SAB to be stacked with industry experts.

All we are asking is that there be some balance to those experts who are asked and that there, further, be transparency, and that we understand who is selected, why they were selected, and why others were excluded from this, just like, by the way, we are not asking that those scientists who have EPA-funded backgrounds be excluded. We are not saying that they are conflicted to the point where they couldn't participate. We recognize that they have expertise that could help in this process.

But we also are asking, on the other hand, that we recognize that there are industry experts who are currently being excluded from this because of their background. Of the 51 members of the current SAB, only three--only three--have any industry expertise, and we are losing valuable insight and valuable guidance because we don't include them in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to some of the comments made on the other side of the aisle.

All of us would be concerned if we thought we were getting advice that had been conflicted financially. I share that concern. In fact, that was one of the primary reasons that we wrote this bill. This bill, to say it again, seeks for transparency and it seeks for openness.

If you are worried about industry experts being stacked on the SABs and providing biased opinion and expertise, I would ask you to give me an example of this. Because I can give you an example of exactly the opposite happening.

I will say it once again: 60 percent of the current Members of the SAB have $140 million in direct government grants. Now, that is a clear conflict. And yet once again, we are still willing to work with that. We are not seeking to exclude those members; we are simply seeking for transparency and openness, and for that same standard to be applied to industry experts as well who could help us with their background and their expertise.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Well, once again, I just have to respond to some of the things that the opposition is saying.

This is essentially their argument: we think it is okay that 60 percent of SAB members have $140 million in direct government grants, and we think it is okay that those same members are then allowed to provide their own peer review of their own work. That is okay.

I think it is very commonsensical to realize there are inherent objections and inherent conflicts in allowing that sort of structure to continue to exist.

It is not gutting the EPA, as was claimed, to ask to increase transparency. It is not gutting the EPA to ask for balance. That is all this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), my good friend.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Tennessee, I would very quickly like to make a point. Once again, all we are seeking is fairness and transparency, and the opposition is claiming that it is okay for government-sponsored and - granted scientists to sit on this board.

In fact, it is okay that 60 percent of them have tens of millions of dollars of government funding, but it is not okay for anyone from the industry, and it is completely transparent how unfair that standard would be.

The second point I would make is this: we are not claiming that either of them should be forbidden to serve on these boards. We are just asking that they disclose those financial agreements and let the American people decide, and that certainly seems to be a fair standard and hardly the minimum that we could ask.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my good friend.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, there are three things that we should keep in mind. The current content or makeup of the SAB is somewhere between 51 and 52 members because there are some in transition as new members come and go. Of those, let's say, 52, only nine are nonuniversity background, and of those, only five and sometimes six represent industry.

The industry experts have much to offer. If you don't think that, say, for example, with the hydraulic fracking board that that technology is changing rapidly, it certainly is, and we need to take advantage of that.

The second thing I would say is public comment. The American people are smart, and the American people are those that are most affected by some of the standards and the rules that the EPA would suggest. We should listen to them, and this bill allows a process where they can be listened to.

Finally, the third thing, we are requesting that 10 percent--a mere 10 percent of these board members come from State, local, or tribal governments. That hardly seems like a bar that is too high to cross in getting input from lay States and localities.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my comrade.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, but before I do, though, I would like to enter into the Record the letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that I mentioned in my previous testimony.

Chamber of Commerce

of the United States of America,

Washington, DC, November 18, 2014.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as

well as state and local chambers and industry associations,

and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending

America's free enterprise system, supports H.R. 1422, the

``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.'' This bill

would help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB),

which directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) on scientific and technical issues, is unbiased

and transparent in performing its duties.

The bill would establish requirements that SAB members are

qualified experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of

bias are disclosed, that the views of members--including

dissenting members--are available to the public, and that the

public has the opportunity to participate in the advisory

activities of the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA

relies on SAB reviews and studies to support new regulations,

standards, guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions,

the actions of the SAB must be transparent and accountable.

This is a critical safeguard to assure the public that the

data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically sound and

unbiased.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the

transparency and trustworthiness of scientific and technical

reviews that EPA relies on to justify its actions. The

American public must have confidence that the scientific and

technical data driving regulatory action can be trusted.

Accordingly, the Chamber supports H.R. 1422.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for considering my bill, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

To reiterate what has been said multiple times here, this legislation addresses how the EPA is systematically silencing voices of dissent on the Science Advisory Board, ignoring calls for independence and balanced participation, and preventing the board from responding to congressional requests.

Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues. However, when inconvenient scientific conclusions are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible, and that is certainly what we have seen.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act addresses these shortcomings by strengthening public participation and public comment opportunities and improving the makeup of the Science Advisory Board and its subpanels.

The bill reinforces peer review requirements and reduces conflicts of interest. It provides opportunities for the dissenting panelists to make their views known and requires communication of uncertainties and scientific findings and conclusions.

The Science Advisory Board Reform Act promotes fairness, transparency, and independence to ensure unbiased scientific advice. Surely, that is something that we could ask for the American people. Surely, that is something

that the opposition could support. In fact, surely, that is something that the White House would support.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this matter, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes a number of technical and conforming changes to address revisions to the existing statute that occurred with the passage of the farm bill. I am pleased to have worked with Representative Davis to strengthen the changes to the statute that he was able to secure in passage of the farm bill.

This amendment is critical to ensure that the underlying bill can be properly applied to existing statute. Just this morning, the legislation received the support of the American Farm Bureau, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I ask for your support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have debated these issues throughout the day. I believe that we have made our case. I believe that we have made our case persuasively. I believe our case is complete.

This amendment is technical in nature. I believe that the bill itself is common sense. It will lead to good government. It will lead to better government at least. It will lead to better advice and counsel given to the EPA through these reforms of the Science Advisory Board. I urge all Members to support it. I look forward to the vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit offered by the opposition today is one thing and one thing only, and that is an attempt to stop what is a reasonable and commonsense bill.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was taken aback, but I was not surprised by what I heard during today's debate.

Contrary to what we just heard, no current member of the SAB can be a registered lobbyist. Mr. Grayson from Florida offered that as an amendment. We accepted that amendment. It is not a part of this bill. Asking for transparency is not gutting the EPA. Asking for public involvement is not gutting the EPA. You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to object to this bill for anything other than purely partisan reasons.

If 60 percent of the members of the Science Advisory Board are receiving more than $140 million in direct government grants, then let's recognize that, and let's ask for transparency. If public comments are regularly ignored--if they are not even given the least or the barest of consideration--let's be honest, and let's try to fix that. If State, local, and industry experts are precluded from sitting and participating on these boards, then let's open the door for their participation and their experience. They have valuable expertise. We should take advantage of that.

Transparency, public involvement, accountability--those are the only things that we are asking for in this bill. Improving balance and transparency in the EPA is not something that should be controversial. We should be able to agree to a balanced, a fair, and a transparent process.

This bill is supported in its current form by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau--I could go on and on. There are more than 20 organizations that are supporting this bill.

To my fellow Members, there are only two very simple choices to make here: stand up now and vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote ``yes'' on final passage. Let's make the EPA transparent. Let's make them accountable. Let's make them true to the science that they have vowed to defend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the fight against cancer. Although there have been great medical strides made over the years, it is sobering to think that today, in this nation, someone will die of cancer every 60 seconds. That is a terrible outcome, and we need to remain vigilant in our fight to eradicate this awful disease.

It is true that much has been done in recent decades to extend lives, to save lives, and to improve the lives of individuals who have cancer, but still there is much more that we can do. Patients are still being denied access to innovative treatments for reasons that have nothing to do with the effectiveness of a treatment and everything to do with the fact that we are studying, regulating, and paying for new cancer drugs in the same way we did 50 years ago. In the face of the Ebola crisis, the federal government and healthcare organizations have reduced regulatory barriers in order to reduce the time required to get new medicines to patients from six years to less than two. We owe it to cancer patients to allow them the same rapid access to these treatments, particularly when it might be their only hope of survival.

In particular, there are three at least policy objectives we should be pursuing: (1) to direct the FDA to approve new life-extending drugs for cancer once Phase I studies show a high

response rate; (2) to encourage programs that provide early detection and identification of genetic mutations that are known to increase cancer risks; and (3) to require that the FDA accelerate access to experimental treatments for patients who have run out of treatment options or are excluded from clinical trials.

These are critical policy goals that must be considered by Congress. There is no doubt that some minds at the FDA may be difficult to change. But I believe that difficulty cannot be compared to the life and death decisions that our citizens and their families and friends face when access to the innovative cancer therapies that provide their best or only chance to save, prolong and improve their lives remains out of reach because of our lack of action.

This is a challenge we can meet, and I'm optimistic that we will.

I thank the chairman for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving for 14 years as a pilot in the Air Force, flying both combat rescue helicopters and the B-1, an aircraft which, by the way, has dropped a disproportionate amount of the ordnance on Afghanistan and Iraq.

I have spent weeks traveling through the area, meeting with various leaders. I have listened to this debate, and I have tried to weigh all sides while we look for a solution to a very difficult problem in an impossibly difficult part of the world, and, even now, it is with reluctance that I am willing to stand and take a stance in support of this amendment, but I have simply reached the conclusion that we have no other choice.

In meeting with President el-Sisi or Prime Minister Netanyahu or King Abdullah or Foreign Ministers and military leaders, what we heard was nearly universal: Where is the United States? Can we count on you to stand by your allies and your friends?

This fight, this battle against ISIS that our President so reluctantly calls a war is a generational battle. I believe it is the defining battle of our lifetime. We cannot afford to waffle. We have been doing that for far too long now.

Yes, this is a terrible situation. There are no good options. All we have are messy and conflicted options, each of which has their own dangers, but this much is true: there is one very worse option, and that is to do nothing.

We may not trust some of the Syrian rebels. I distrust ISIS even more. We may not like some of the leaders we have to align with. Some of them may prove to be unreliable, but nothing and no one represents more of a threat.

To those who are unwilling to support this amendment, I would ask you: How can you justify doing nothing? That is the only option that we have been given. Do nothing, or do this.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our friends and our allies in the region to step up and lead. After months, even years of inaction, the President is finally doing that.

I wish that we were doing more. I wish that we were doing more, but this is the only option that we have been given, and we must at least do this.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4315 is simply a no-brainer. Its primary purpose is to require that ESA be available to the public. This is nothing but a commonsense reform in the application of a law that is subject to extensive bureaucratic manipulation. Some opponents wrongly assume that the American people don't need to see this data, but how can anyone argue against transparency in our Federal Government?

Let me quickly list an example in my district. We have the Utah prairie dog, a species that was listed under the ESA in 1973. U.S. Fish and Wildlife says there needs to be at least 1,500 prairie dogs before they can be considered for delisting as recovered, but the Federal Government only counts those dogs living on Federal lands, about 442 of them. In 2013, there were almost 5,000 of these prairie dogs living on private land that went uncovered.

Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 4256, the Endangered Species Improvement Recovery Act, something which would help in this effort as well. H.R. 4315 is a commonsense approach, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a very dangerous world. It seems like there is chaos and darkness all around us. As a former Air Force pilot, I have seen the results of abusive power in a very real way.

It seems like every time we turn on the television or we read the news, we get the feeling that the world is being turned upside down. The wheels have come off the train and we seem to be careening towards the cliff: Russia takes Crimea and then sends un-uniformed troops into eastern Ukraine; tens of thousands of deaths in Syria, with millions of refugees; the recent evacuation of our own Embassy in Libya; Iran working toward a nuclear weapon; ISIS in Iraq creating essentially a terrorist state; the crisis of Chinese power threatening significant parts of the Eastern world. The list of concerns is very long, indeed.

But nowhere is the strife and uncertainty more dangerous, more strategic, and more critical to U.S. interests than what we are witnessing in Israel and their military operations in Gaza.

Israel is the most important ally in the region that we have. It has the only democratically elected government in a very unstable and violent part of the world. It has a vibrant, free capitalistic society that respects human rights, that respects women's rights, that respects minority rights, even the religious minorities.

Let me say this as clearly and as unambiguously as I can: Israel is our friend and our ally. So tonight we stand with Israel and state without equivocation that Israel has a right to defend itself.

Let me set the stage for the crisis that is happening right now, very quickly.

September 2005: Israel withdraws from Gaza Strip, home to some 1.8 million people. Thousands of Israelis are uprooted and missile fire from Gaza into Israel increases dramatically.

A few short months later, in January 2006, Hamas deposes Fatah, wins elections, and becomes the ruling party of Gaza. The United States, Britain, and all the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

June 2007: Hamas seizes power in Gaza with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.

Skipping ahead now to May 2014: rocket attacks from Gaza to Israel increase.

June 12, 2014: Three Israeli teenagers are kidnapped and killed on the West Bank. The PA aids Israel Defense Forces in clamping down on Hamas in the West Bank and tension increases significantly. As a result of that, Hamas unleashes hundreds of rockets in Israel.

Finally, July 7, 2014: the Israel Defense Forces launch Operation Protective Edge. Its goal is to stop the insistent rocket attacks in Israel. Within a week, they expand to an offensive ground war. Its purpose is to destroy Hamas tunnels built for military use against Israel. Now, we will talk more about these tunnels, but let me mention just briefly that, to date, Israel has uncovered more than 66 access shafts to 30 tunnels. Palestinian militants have fired, to date, more than 2,000 rockets since the fighting began on July 8.

Let me put that in perspective before I turn the time over to some of my colleagues.

Imagine, if you will, that al Qaeda or ISIS in Iraq has pledged the destruction of the U.S., something which is not hard to imagine. Now imagine they placed a military frigate off our eastern shore. Now, they claim that it is a supply ship, they say that it has no military purpose, that it only has civilian and peaceful purposes. But then imagine they start lobbing not a few and not dozens, but hundreds of rockets and missiles along our eastern shore, specifically targeting cities where millions of innocent families live.

What would we do? What should we do. Would you expect your government, your President, to protect you? Of course, we would. We would defend ourselves. We would seek the elimination of the threat. We would protect our own people, our values, our way of life. Any Nation would, and every Nation should be able to do that.

That is all the State of Israel is asking: the right to defend itself. That is why we are here tonight, to defend a friend and ally against not only missiles and rockets, but against an onslaught of deception in the world of public opinion. We want our friends in Israel to know that they do not stand alone.

I have invited some of my friends and colleagues to share the floor with me this evening as we stand firm and united in the defense of Israel and their right to protect themselves.

I would like to begin with my colleague Dr. Wenstrup from Ohio. He is a fellow veteran, he has served in the Army Reserves since 1989, and served a tour in Iraq. He sits on the House Armed Services and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I yield to Dr. Wenstrup.

Thank you, Dr. Wenstrup.

Next, I would like to yield to Mr. Steve King, a colleague and gentleman from Iowa. Mr. King sits on the Agriculture, Small Business, and Judiciary Committees, and he has always been a strong defender of Israel.

Thank you, Mr. King.

Mr. King mentioned the tunnels. I would like to illustrate this, if I could, and just interject very quickly. This is a photograph of the tunnels. These aren't dark 2-foot holes dug into the ground.

These are sophisticated, expensive, complicated contraptions that have been put together--30 tunnels, not including the more than two dozen that were discovered prior to Operation Protective Edge. They run for miles.

They are dug more than 60 feet beneath the ground, so that they avoid seismic detection. Some of them are large enough that you can drive a vehicle through them.

You think: What is their purpose? Is it to smuggle men, weapons, or material? It is to in some cases, unfortunately, smuggle and hide those who have been captured and are being kidnapped. Hamas operatives have been intercepted emerging from the tunnels with tranquilizers and handcuffs--obviously, to kidnap Israeli soldiers.

Once again, how much better would the situation have been for the citizens of Gaza if these resources and this money had been diverted? Instead of building tunnels, build infrastructure and schools and hospitals and other things that the citizens there could use.

Thank you, Mr. King, for your comments.

I would like now to yield to my good friend, Mr. Daines from Montana. He is a successful businessman who sits on the Homeland Security, Natural Resources, and Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittees.

Mr. Daines, I agree that we must stand with Israel. All of us here tonight agree that we must stand with Israel.

I now yield to my colleague and good friend, Mrs. Hartzler from Missouri.

Thank you. We have so many people who want to join in this conversation tonight. We are grateful for many of those who participated.

It is my honor to yield to Mr. Engel, who represents New York, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Sir, we are glad to have you with us.

Thank you, Mr. Engel. Thank you for your service on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

You bring up such a great point. This is a bipartisan issue. There is agreement on both sides of the aisle. We have got servicemembers, military members, school teachers, and businessmen. We have got people from all backgrounds who want to speak on this tonight. Frankly, we have got more people who want to join in this Special Order than we have time for.

I would like to now yield to Mr. Collins from Georgia. He has a unique perspective as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee as well. He served as a chaplain in the Air Force since 2002 and a combat tour in Iraq in 2008.

Mr. Collins, thank you for your service.

I thank you for your comments and for your support, Mr. Collins.

I now am happy to introduce the newest Member of Congress, Mr. Clawson from Florida.

Thank you, Mr. Clawson. We look forward to serving with you in the future, and we, once again, welcome you.

It is now my honor to introduce my good friend and someone I have come to respect and admire, Mrs. Walorski from Indiana. She is the daughter of an Air Force veteran and serves on the House Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees.

We thank you, Mrs. Walorski. Beautifully said.

I now would like to introduce someone I have come to have tremendous respect for. He brings not only a unique perspective but great experience to this question as chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. He is also a U.S. Army Vietnam veteran; although, he appears to be far too young for that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to you.

Thank you, Chairman Frelinghuysen, for your comments and for your leadership.

It is now my honor to introduce Mr. Lance from New Jersey. He served for many years in the New Jersey State Legislature and now serves on the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Lance.

As the manager of this Special Order, I have to be prepared to fill the time if we need to, to fill any gaps in the conversation, and very clearly that has not been necessary tonight. We have so many eloquent Members who are anxious and are stating this case so powerfully.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who also serves on the Armed Services Committee and Judiciary Committee and is also chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Thank you, Mr. Franks.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a good friend of mine, someone, once again, that I have come to respect greatly. For one thing, he is a colonel in the Army National Guard. I was only a major when I separated from the Air Force, so, of course, I salute him every time I see him. He sits on the Homeland Security and also Foreign Affairs Committees.

Thank you, Mr. Perry.

Once again, I have the honor of yielding to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio), a Member with a unique background, who, while stationed in Iraq with the Michigan Army National Guard, he, himself, experienced rocket attacks. This happened on a regular basis, so I think he speaks with some authority on the subject tonight.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan. He has stated it, once again, like many others, very powerfully.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion tonight, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who, once again, as a senior member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, has great experience and is unquestionably like many of us, a strong supporter of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, that was powerfully said.

In conclusion, as we wind down our time tonight, let me just finalize with these thoughts.

There is a great line from a speech that would have been given by John F. Kennedy in November 1963 if he had been allowed to give that speech before he was assassinated. And he said: ``This people, this generation, not by choice, but by destiny, are set to be the watchmen on the wall of world freedom.''

We may not like the fact that we have to lead in the world. We may not like the responsibility. We may not like the cost. We may not like the hassle or the criticism or sometimes the hatred that is directed toward us. But it doesn't matter. We have to lead. If we don't do it, who will? If we don't lead, we give power to our enemies, and we weaken our friends.

We have a chance here tonight to make a statement to the world. To the people of Israel, we stand by your side. To the peace-loving people of Gaza, we stand with you as well. But to the terrorists who seek for the destruction of Israel and to the leaders of Hamas who seek only for death and destruction, we, the American people, will always stand in your way.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for giving me 1 minute to speak on this.

I was an Air Force pilot for 14 years. I flew for 7 years as a combat rescue helicopter pilot. We flew and exercised with the A-10s all the time. I also flew for 7 years the B-1. We were tasked with this mission of close air support. I am not here because I have A-10s in my district. I am here because I realize what an invaluable resource this is.

Close air support is an incredibly delicate and unforgiving mission. If you hit the wrong bridge, people will forgive you. If you frag your own troops, you will never forgive yourself. It is best done by an aircraft that is low and slow, that has superb communications and superb visibility.

There is nothing that is as good as the A-10 is in this mission. I know that from my own experience. That is why I rise and stand in support of this very important amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am recorded as voting ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 254, an amendment by Mr. Moran that would facilitate closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by allowing the transfer of those dangerous detainees, who were captured on the battlefield in the war on terror, to be transferred to the United States of America. Mr. Speaker on this vote I was misrecorded. I duly intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall No. 254.

Mr. Speaker, Federal agencies in Washington, D.C., are setting new records. Unfortunately, these are not records that they should be proud of. In 2013, the Federal Register contained nearly 80,000 pages of new rules and regulations imposed on American businesses. We know that the result of this is that it stifles jobs, it slows economic growth, and it hurts

opportunities for hardworking Americans.

Before coming to Congress, I was a small business owner. I saw firsthand the devastating effect of these regulations on job creation and growth. This administration will be remembered for one thing, and that is ObamaCare, which I think is the worst law written in the history of the universe. But it will also be recognized for another, and that is Dodd-Frank, which runs a close second. Both of these are emblematic of this philosophy of bigger government, a more powerful government, a less effective government.

Now is the time to get serious about reducing the regulatory overburden upon the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Dr. Price, who is one of the really bright lights here in Congress, for his leadership on this.

Imagine the CEO of a business telling the board of directors that he would like to buy a new piece of equipment. Unfortunately, this piece of equipment is fairly expensive. But there is good news, and that is, by buying and making this investment, they are going to become more profitable; they are going to improve their cash flow; they are going to be able to hire more people and grow the business. That is a beautiful thing.

But then imagine that the board of directors goes back to the CEO and says, yes, you have to consider the cost of this equipment but you cannot consider the benefits of buying this piece of equipment, so it messes up entirely his profit projections. They are not able to consider the higher revenue and the growth that this company would undertake. That would be absurd and, of course, that wouldn't be a sound business decision. But that is exactly the situation that we find ourselves in right now.

The Congressional Budget Office does not have the ability to account for economic growth, specifically, the impact on GDP when it comes from tax cuts. CBO is, unfortunately, in the role of the board of directors telling the businessowner--or the business CEO, in

my example--that it can't use the full toolkit of economic modeling in making projections upon which to make these critical decisions.

I have a degree in economics. I was a small business owner. I understand this isn't rocket science. The modeling of this is relatively simple. It is certainly something that we could do, and we hurt ourselves when we don't allow us to take advantage of this modeling.

There is something that Members from both sides of the aisle can agree upon, and it is that many times the numbers provided by CBO are simply not accurate. This is a way that will fix that. Part of the reason they object, frankly, is that it underestimates the impact of tax cuts.

Mr. Chairman, this is something that could help us make better decisions. I implore Members to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend and, really, one of my heroes, Congressman Bishop of Utah, for bringing attention to, I think, this very important topic, especially one to my home State of Utah.

To my friends across the aisle, I think you have to twist yourselves into pretzels in order to object to this bill. In 1996, nearly 2 million acres in the heart of my district were locked up in the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument--nearly 2 million acres.

It was the largest national monument created in the history of the United States. This massive monument was created with a stroke of the President's pen, without any consultation, without even notice given to the local population, no phone calls, no conversations, nothing.

The President didn't even have the courage to step into my State when he created this monument. He stood on the Arizona border and said: I create a national monument over there.

If the President desires to create new large national monuments, surely he can believe that conducting a thorough environmental analysis is a good thing. NEPA was specifically designed to mandate that Federal agencies stop and think about proposed actions and make sure that those actions are appropriate.

It also mandates that all of those who are impacted by that decision would have sufficient information and approval. If the creation of a national monument is a good idea, shouldn't the monuments have to undergo public scrutiny?

And if the President can take 5 years--5 years and counting--to approve, say, the Keystone pipeline, can't we take an appropriate amount of consideration before we create another massive monument? That is what democracy is all about. That is all that this bill asks for.

Madam Speaker, every day when I am talking to constituents, their top concern is always the economy and jobs. They are frustrated--as I am--that we have something like 3.8 million Americans who have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks now. And I am consistently asked by people: What can be done? How can we make this better?

In addition to urging the Senate to pass numerous pieces of jobs legislation that have moved through the House, the President needs to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. It has been more than 2,000 days since the pipeline application was submitted for approval, 2,000 days that the administration has delayed something like 20,000 direct jobs and 120,000 indirect jobs. It took less time to fight and win World War II. It took much less time to build the Empire State Building, and it has taken us much longer to do this than to build the first computer.

If we can win world wars and create an entire industry for computers, we can surely make a decision about the Keystone pipeline. Mr. President, do the right thing. Approve the pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all 230 American athletes who participated in the Sochi Olympics, and I am proud to say that 15 of these Olympians were from my home State of Utah and that seven of them won medals. Through their talent, their skill, and dedication, they represented Utah and our country very well.

These Utah athletes come from very different backgrounds. Some of them

are in the middle of their careers. Some of them are military members. Some are students. Many of them are parents.

They showed dedication and effort and that sacrifice can lead to success. These athletes should inspire all of us to strive to achieve our goals. As a father, I have seen their example inspire my six children.

While these Olympians weren't guaranteed a medal, that didn't stop them from working and sacrificing in every way to achieve their goals. We should all continue to look to these Olympic athletes for inspiration, to become better, and to be more dedicated to our goals, even when it is tough.

I wish these athletes good luck in the future and thank them for their inspiration.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 5th on rollcall 38 for H.R. 3590 I inadvertently voted ``yea'' for the amendment instead of ``nay.'' My intention was to vote against the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Missouri for allowing me to speak tonight. Thank you for organizing this. I think this is an important issue. In fact, I would say that this is a critical issue. It is a great example of why the American people don't trust the Federal Government. Let me say that again. The American people don't trust the Federal Government. So much of what they do doesn't make any sense, and so much of what the EPA does doesn't make any sense.

I was the chair of the Subcommittee on the Environment, and we had direct oversight over EPA. Again and again, I saw examples of the things that they did that illustrated that they were an agency that is, in many ways, out of control. At one point, they had proposed regulations over ozone that were virtually impossible for many Western States to comply with, Western States like my home State of Utah. Their regulations would have been so restrictive that there was more naturally occurring ozone than they would have allowed. It doesn't make any sense.

There are multiple studies that were sponsored by the EPA concerning supposed contamination of groundwater from fracking that were so sloppy and

so obviously biased that even the EPA had to finally admit to them and withdraw their own studies. Once again, it doesn't make any sense.

Why would the EPA try to stop fracking, a technology that has led to cheaper energy, more efficient energy, jobs, and economic growth in many parts of our country? It doesn't make any sense.

There is the war on coal that I suppose many will be speaking about. As my friend, Mrs. Hartzler, was saying, it drives up the cost of energy for every working family. It does nothing to reduce global carbon emissions.

I would like to take a minute and expand on, with a little more detail, what I think is one of the most egregious and troubling examples of EPA overreach. I want to speak on behalf of the thousands of landowners in my district, to my home State of Utah, that face a new threat due to the heavy hand of the EPA. This will affect farmers, it will affect ranchers, and even homeowners as they come into the crosshairs of an agency that has an ever-expanding regulatory agenda. The new actions of EPA are nothing more than a power grab that will have significant impact on infrastructure, on energy and land development.

Back in September, the EPA published a drafted rule to more heavily regulate the Clean Water Act. Now, make no mistake, this rule is wholly in defiance of recent Supreme Court rulings that determined the Agency was out of step with current law. The drafted rule would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private lakes, small ponds, seasonal streams. Every depression, no matter how far away it was from a jurisdictional water, could fall under this regulation. It would require farmers to get approval from the EPA before they planted their crops. It would require permits from the EPA before you could build on your own property, and it would hand environmentalists another way to sue property owners. It would drastically increase the cost and the timeframe of building any piece of infrastructure, whether it is a highway or a power plant, all of the things that communities need in order to survive.

Everyone agrees that we should protect the environment. There is a reason that I chose to live in Utah. I love to rock climb. I love to hike. I love to ski. I grew up on a farm. I love the land. I want to protect the land. The presumption is that because I am a Republican I must hate the land, and I think it is absurd.

If you want to take a meaningful step towards restoring trust between the American people and the Federal Government, then rein in the power of the EPA. It appears that our President has exactly the opposite in mind, and that scares me to death. It, frankly, should scare every American. I hope that he doesn't. I hope we are able to control this Agency. I hope that this discussion tonight helps move us forward towards doing that.