Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the highway bill before us today. While I strongly support infrastructure spending and believe we must pass a short-term fix to avert insolvency this summer, I am concerned that this bill will allow us to simply kick the can down the road one more time and delay a long-term solution.

This week, the Senate voted on a bipartisan basis to shorten the timeline of this emergency extension, increasing pressure for a permanent solution this year. The House should not now delay those urgent conversations into next Spring. Our states and businesses have repeatedly asked for a long-term highway bill that provides certainty and allows them to tackle our greatest infrastructure needs. Congress should pass a temporary patch to get us the next few months, and then immediately begin work to fix the Trust Fund once and for all. Our constituents expect solutions, not band-aids, and it is long past time for Congress to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking over the rule that was passed late last night, and my reading of the rule indicates that that there was a change in the standing rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I would like some parliamentary clarification on that provision.

If you look at the resolution in section 4, it says, ``Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to H.R. 5021''--that is the transportation-related bill--``may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.''

Now, I am looking at the standing rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, and the standing rules of the House provide that ``when the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.''

My question is: Doesn't ``privileged'' mean available to any Member of the House?

Well, Mr. Speaker, my understanding of a parliamentary inquiry was where the Speaker was supposed to clarify questions of the rules and the parliamentary order.

I am simply asking whether or not, in previous rulings by this House and by the Parliamentarian, ``privileged'' has been interpreted to mean something that is available to any Member of the House, not just to the majority leader or the designee of the majority leader?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

If the Chair does not want to interpret this parliamentary inquiry at this time, at what point would it be in order to ask the Parliamentarian and the Chair to interpret the rules of the House?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it not the rule, passed out of the committee, that is pending? That is the parliamentary inquiry. Is that what is pending before the House, the rule?

But, Mr. Speaker, isn't the matter pending before the House the rule that the designated chairman--acting chairman--of the Rules Committee just spoke about?

That is correct, Mr. Speaker. And I am reading one of the provisions of that resolution, specifically section 4 of that rule, which is before the House which changes the rules of the House to say that a motion may only be made by the majority leader or his designee, as opposed to the privileged motion required under the underlying rule. Is that correct?

If I could ask for 1 minute of time to discuss this matter.

Look, yesterday, we were on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, and our Republican colleagues passed a measure to sue the President of the United States, waste millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to sue the President of the United States, and the claim was the President has exceeded his authority.

That is a specious claim, but what is incredible is the very next day our Republican colleagues are here suspending democracy in the House, changing the standing rules of the House to take away from any Member of the House the opportunity to offer a motion with respect to the transportation bill, which is what the standing rules of the House provide, and they want to say no, we are going to take that right away from a Member, and we are going to give it exclusively to the Republican leader or the Republican leader's designee.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the last time we saw this happen? On the government shutdown. Our Republican colleagues used the same measure to refuse to take up the Senate bill, which would have ended the government shutdown. They didn't want to end it, so they kept it going. That cost the American taxpayer $24 billion in damage to the economy.

Let's not play games with the rule, that this rule allows every Member their rights. The Speaker is not the king, and we should make sure that every Member has an opportunity.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4315, which would interfere with scientific determinations for endangered species recovery and divert resources towards unnecessary bureaucracy at the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Endangered Species Act is designed to use the best possible science to identify and protect our most vulnerable species from extinction. This bill would eliminate rational assessment of data and instead mandate that any information from any state, local, or tribal government must be named the ``best available science'' to make decisions. It includes no minimum threshold, such as peer review, for the integrity of that data. Moreover, it invites uncertainty, as there is no way to distinguish between conflicting data from two different states or localities.

The bill also creates unnecessary and cumbersome reporting requirements for the Fish and Wildlife Service, including listing potentially sensitive commercial data and species location information online. It includes no additional funding to complete these reports, diverting funds from the agency's core mission of safeguarding vulnerable species.

As the Speaker plans to recess the House at the end of this week, there are important

issues that we should be addressing, including the wildfires that threaten public and private lands in the west. Instead, we are weakening fundamental protections for endangered species, creating more paperwork to distract from recovery efforts, and devising bizarre new rules to politicize science. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the child tax credit, and I support expanding and strengthening the child tax credit.

The problem is this bill does just the opposite for the most needy families with kids in the United States. They don't get a tax cut under this bill. In fact, they get deliberately left behind because this bill fails to extend a critical improvement to the tax credit that is only currently temporary in law, and they don't extend that.

I heard the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee earlier blaming that on the President, once again, as if the President made our Republican colleagues not include that provision in their bill. Extending the child tax credit is in the President's budget. Extending the child tax credit is in the House Democratic budget. Extending that child tax credit enhancement is not in the House Republican budget, and that is why it is not here today.

What is the impact of this?

The impact is to hurt our low-income families with kids. As Mr. Levin pointed out earlier, it is really ironic that, just yesterday, the chairman of the Budget Committee gave a big talk in Washington about how he wanted to ``start a conversation about poverty'' and ``help families get ahead.'' That was yesterday. Those were words. Here we are on the floor of the House today with an actual deed, an actual act--a vote that will put 12 million more Americans into poverty or deeper into poverty, 6 million of them children.

The President in his budget extends those benefits--those tax strengthening, tax-cut provisions--and pays for them by getting rid of some of the big tax breaks for corporations. The Republican approach has been just the opposite. In the last 6 weeks, they have permanently extended tax breaks for big corporations, but today, when it comes to the kids, they leave them behind. They don't extend those enhancements.

Who are these individuals? Let me point out to our colleagues the folks who are being left behind:

A single mother of two, working full-time at minimum wage, will lose a tax credit of $1,725. This is an individual who is making about $15,000 a year. These are the people we are trying to help with the child tax credit. Yes, we would love to expand it, but not at the expense of this single mom. Who else

gets left behind? It would be an Army private E-1--married, one child. They are going to lose $229 in their child tax credit because this Republican bill refuses to extend those enhancements.

Mr. Speaker, yes, let's strengthen it, but not at the expense of those most vulnerable families. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) on its 40th anniversary. Forty years ago, President Nixon signed into law the LSC Act, establishing the Legal Services Corporation as one of the major sources of funding for civil legal aid. In the time since, LSC has grown to be the single largest funder of civil legal aid for low-income Americans, including many military families and veterans.

Legal Services Corporation-funded legal aid programs continue to make a crucial difference to millions of Americans by assisting with the most basic civil legal needs, such as addressing matters involving safety, subsistence, and family stability. LSC funds 134 legal aid organizations that serve hundreds of thousands of low-income individuals, children, families, seniors, and veterans across America. These individuals range from women seeking protection from abuse, mothers trying to obtain child support, families facing unlawful evictions or foreclosures that could leave them homeless, veterans seeking benefits duly earned, and seniors defending against consumer scams.

Demand for legal services and the need for legal aid attorneys has never been greater in this country. In recent years, however, over 1,000 full time employees have been terminated as a result of a continued lack of funding for LSC. So while we reflect on the achievements of LSC over the last forty years, Congress must also renew its commitment to providing LSC the critical resources it needs to assist our most vulnerable.

On this anniversary, I salute the Legal Services Corporation and LSC- funded attorneys for the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who need qualified counsel. Every day that a legal aid attorney protects the safety, security and health of our most vulnerable citizens, they bring this nation closer to living up to its commitment to equal justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the two bipartisan higher education bills we are considering this week--the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act (H.R. 3136) and the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act (H.R. 4984).

H.R. 3136, on the floor today, allows schools to pilot new competency-based education programs to give students more flexibility to pursue their educations. By exploring new options to measure student growth, rather than relying solely on completed credit hours, we can reduce costs and time to degree for non-traditional students.

H.R. 4984, which we will consider tomorrow, increases financial counseling for students and parents to ensure that they understand any lower-cost options that are available before turning to more expensive loans, have an accurate picture of their debt and obligations, and can predict and manage their monthly payments upon graduation.

While I support both of these efforts, much more needs to be done to ensure that students have access to affordable education and address college debt, which has now surpassed $1 trillion. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to reauthorize the Higher Education Act and give America's students the opportunity to pursue the skills and education they need without accumulating debt they can't afford.

I thank my friend and colleague for yielding. I am honored to stand with him and all of us in solidarity with the people of the Netherlands and the families and loved ones of all the victims of that act of terror.

We look forward to working together to make sure that this situation is resolved as quickly as possible and the perpetrators are held accountable. I know we all stand together on that as well. And I am grateful to my colleague from Michigan for bringing us together for this purpose.

Mr. Chair, while I appreciate the Appropriations Committee's efforts to return to regular order, the Administration has issued a veto threat for this bill--and it's not hard to understand why.

While the bill does an adequate job funding the federal judiciary--as well as some important entrepreneurial initiatives at the Small Business Administration--virtually every other funding allocation and policy directive in this bill is either insufficient or misguided.

The Internal Revenue Service is funded at below sequestration levels, which will unquestionably hinder taxpayer assistance and undermine efforts to close the tax gap. The Securities and Exchange Commission charged with protecting investors and policing our financial markets is funded at $300 million below the President's request. And the Election Assistance Commission tasked with ensuring the integrity of our elections is eliminated altogether.

In addition to these funding decisions, H.R. 5016 contains policy riders hostile to the President's Climate Action Plan, the Affordable Care Act, women's reproductive health and standards governing the political activities of tax-exempt organizations. The independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be terminated under this legislation.

Mr. Chair, this bill is wrong on funding and wrong on policy. I urge a no vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am opposed in its current form.

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit does two things. First, it ensures that the charities we support, we support in a fiscally responsible manner by extending these incentives for 2 years, rather than permanently in order to, number one, give taxpayers clarity, but also to give this Congress time to work together on tax reform without piling up huge new deficits.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday in the Budget Committee, we had a hearing on the long-term deficits. Our Republican colleagues said they worry about the long-term deficit picture, and yet, in the last 6 weeks, they have added over $500 billion to the deficit, in violation of their own budget, including what we are doing today. So let's do this extension for 2 years and in a fiscally responsible manner.

The second thing this motion does is it denies the benefits of this legislation to any corporation that effectively renounces its U.S. citizenship and reincorporates overseas to avoid taxes. These so-called corporate inversions are generating outrage among families and small businesses around the country who can't simply tell the IRS they have moved their residence to some tax haven country because they don't want to pay their taxes.

In recent months, we have seen corporation after corporation jumping on this bandwagon. In fact, the financial press reports that Walgreens, the drugstore chain that has almost all of its

stores right here in the United States, is thinking about moving to Switzerland.

Now here is the catch: Walgreens' management doesn't want to do it, but they are being driven by outside hedge fund stockholders to do this simply for tax purposes, so we have a situation where the management of an American company is being forced to decide between pressure from hedge funds to exploit a tax dodge and loyalty to the United States of America, the country where Walgreens was built into a company and where its customers are.

Just on Tuesday, Secretary Lew wrote to Congress expressing urgency to stop this fled of inversions now as we deal with broader tax reform. He called for a new sense of economic patriotism, and I couldn't agree with him more.

The ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin, and others have worked together to do this. We have got to get it done. The respected reporter, Alan Sloan, just wrote about this in Fortune magazine this month and said he was angry about this.

Mr. Speaker, we should all be angry. We should do something about it. We have already voted to say, on appropriations bills, that you shouldn't benefit from contracts if you are just going to move your residency overseas.

We should say the same thing with respect to tax benefits. You shouldn't get a tax benefit if you are renouncing your U.S. citizenship and deserting U.S. taxpayers and the country for tax-avoidance schemes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and pay tribute to the extraordinary achievements of my constituent, Henry Minton Francis, Sr., who devoted his entire life to serving our country and his community. Mr. Francis was also the oldest living African American graduate of West Point Academy.

H. Minton Francis, Lt. Col., USA Ret., was a fifth generation Washingtonian and resident of Chevy Chase, MD. He attended public schools in the District of Columbia where he graduated from the famous Paul Laurence Dunbar High School. Educated at the University of Pennsylvania and the United States Military Academy, he also studied at Syracuse University, where he earned an MBA degree with honors and was elected to the International Honor Society of Beta Gamma Sigma. Following graduation from West Point in 1944, Mr. Francis served the nation as an officer of the Regular Army for twenty-one years. He was a member of the Army Concept Team in Vietnam; a commander of artillery soldiers in the Korean Conflict and in World War II. His final military duty was to serve as a staff officer for the Comptroller of the Army and the Secretary of Defense.

Subsequent to his retirement from the Army, Mr. Francis worked both in government and the private sector. As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Francis was in charge of the Defense Human Goals Program guaranteeing protection of the rights of, and equal opportunities for, women, minorities and the disabled of all races, ethnic groups and religions. His program embraced the now famous Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida, the first of its kind anywhere in the United States. For his extraordinary efforts, Mr. Francis was awarded the Distinguished Civilian Service Medal for his exceptional service in the Department of Defense.

On leaving federal service, Mr. Francis accepted appointments at Howard University as Director of University Planning; Executive Director of the University-Wide Self-Study Task force; Executive Secretary of the Presidential Search Committee in 1989; Special Assistant to the President; and Director of Governmental Affairs. In December 1992, he was appointed President of the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation, authorized at that time by the United States Congress to erect a memorial on the National Mall in honor of the more than 5,000 African Americans who fought and died in the American Revolution.

For nearly 20 years Mr. Francis was a civilian aide to the Secretary of the Army, a voluntary office without compensation, where he carried the Army's message and image to the American people.

As a human resources consultant to the Secretary of the Army, Mr. Francis traveled to Europe at his own expense to investigate and report on the command climate with respect to race and gender relations in the U.S. Army units stationed in Germany. He performed a similar service for Army installations in the midwestem United States. The report produced by his group led to major changes in the Army's policy and practices with respect to race and gender.

Mr. Francis was a Life Member of Disabled American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Additionally, he was a Trustee Emeritus of the Association of Graduates of the United States Military Academy, a member of the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs, the Board of Managers of the Historical Society of Washington, DC, and the Board of Directors of Metropolitan USO in Washington. He was a volunteer member of the Board of Directors of the Carroll Publishing Company of the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. He held memberships in the National Press Club and the University Club of Washington, DC, and he was a member of Sigma Pi Phi, the oldest and one of the most prestigious African-American fraternities.

Mr. Francis is survived by his second wife Alicia G. D. Francis and five children from his first marriage: Marsha A. Francis, Henry M. Francis, Jr., M.D.; Peter M. Francis, Morya K.F. Ferris, and John H. Francis, six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren, nieces, nephews, other relatives and friends.

I am proud to speak today to honor this extraordinary man and I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. H. Minton Francis Sr.'s many accomplishments, his lifelong work on behalf of our nation's veterans, and his profound commitment to honoring their service.

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the Budget Act of 1974. If you look at section 311, it is entitled, ``Enforcement of Budget Aggregates.''

The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, violates that section of the Budget Act because it cuts the revenues below the levels that were set forth in the Republican budget that was passed on this House floor with much fanfare on May 15. The bill before us does not keep the revenues at those levels.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of this point of order, to point out that on May 15 of this year Chairman Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee, filed a statement in the Congressional Record reporting the current revenue level for fiscal year 2015 and the remainder of the budget window.

And this is what he said when he filed that. This is, Mr. Speaker, in the Record of May 15, page H4428. This is what Mr. Ryan said:

``This comparison is needed to implement section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels.''

This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, as you can see, clearly violates that provision of the statute of section 311(a) of the Budget Act because it increases the deficit to the taxpayer by $287 billion above what was cited in the budget resolution adopted by this House. It is a clear breach of the rule.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the point of order be sustained and that the House Republicans have to live up to their own budget resolution which, as I say, they passed with much fanfare not that long ago.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, further on the point of order, the gentleman from Michigan clearly wasn't addressing any of the issues raised in the point of order.

I would ask the gentleman about section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which is what this point of order is based on. Let's talk about the point of order.

The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee voted for the House Budget Act. He voted for it, and now he is bringing to the floor of the House a provision that violates the same Budget Act that that budget was passed pursuant to.

So, Mr. Speaker, let's continue to focus on this point of order because

what we have here is a situation where Republicans came to this House floor not long ago, passed that budget, and are now here on the floor today with another bill that violates the Budget Act's section 311(a).

So I would like a ruling on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Is the point of order as a result of the fact that the Republicans apparently passed a rule that waives section 311(a) of the Budget Act?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Did the Republican rule--the rule that was brought to the floor of the House--include a provision that waived section 311(a) of the Budget Act?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

I am looking at that, and it does indicate to me that the House Republican rule actually waived the statutory provision that requires that the bill that they brought to the floor comply with their own budget.

I just would point out, Mr. Speaker, that here is exactly what happened. The rule----

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3301, which would dramatically weaken the public input and environmental review process for cross-border pipelines.

Cross-border pipelines can be enormously complex projects, spanning hundreds of miles and operating for decades. The bill before us today would limit environmental review of these projects to the narrow segment that actually crosses the border, preventing analysis of the full scope of impacts on private property, public safety, and water quality. And it would exempt modifications to existing pipelines from any federal review, so a pipeline's capacity could be increased significantly, its contents could be changed, or its flow could be reversed without any discussion of the impacts of those decisions.

Moreover, this bill opens the door to unlimited natural gas exports by lifting all restrictions on exports to Canada or Mexico. Those exports could then be shipped anywhere in the world without approval or review of impacts on domestic energy prices. A number of American manufacturers have expressed concern about unchecked LNG exports raising their costs of doing business and increasing the price of consumer goods.

Once again, we have a bill on the floor of this House that limits public comment and short-circuits the cost-benefit analysis. While we all want these reviews to operate efficiently, we should not place arbitrary restrictions that fail to give regulators enough information to make a responsible decision. I urge a no vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4870, the FY2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

I commend the House Appropriations Committee's continued support for our servicemembers and our national defense. However, I have serious concerns with a number of misguided funding provisions in this year's DoD Appropriations bill. We have to budget based on reality, instead of writing a blank check and holding onto as ``much of the stuff and the training as possible'' and hoping that ``some miracle happens and we get money next year that we don't have now,'' as Chairman McKeon put it last month. As a result of this line of thinking, this legislation avoids making many tough choices.

As was the case with last month's Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 4870 provides billions of dollars in funding that the Department of Defense neither requested nor needs. This includes funding for additional EA-18G aircraft, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, and unrequested upgrades to the M-1 Abrams tank. It also blocks the Administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary military aircraft, including the C-130 AMP, when less expensive options are readily available.

I also strongly object to sections 8107, 8108, 8139, and 9015 of the bill, which continue funding restrictions on the construction or modification of detention facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees. I was also disappointed that two amendments were adopted on the House floor which would bar the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to Yemen and other foreign countries. As the President made clear in his State of the Union Address earlier this year, we cannot wait any longer to lift the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and close down this facility once-and-for-all.

This bill also provides $79 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations even though we have not received a detailed OCO budget request. There is no justification for this amount. The bill holds back 85% of the funding from being obligated until the Pentagon submits a detailed spending plan. But this is no safeguard because the Pentagon still determines virtually all of the details of how the funding is spent. Congress has no opportunity to provide input through regular order into how much we should spend for war operations and on what. We should take notice that $79 billion is larger than every other appropriations bill except for two--Defense and Labor, HHS, Education. We need to provide at least some minimum level of oversight and control over such a large sum of money.

Despite my overall opposition to this legislation, I was happy that a bipartisan amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren was adopted that would limit funding for many backdoor programs within Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. This was a provision that was initially in the USA Freedom Act before being stripped in its final passage and would prevent the NSA from being able to search government databases for foreign communications content of American citizens without a warrant. The passage of this amendment will strengthen the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. Today's bill also continues to address the problem of sexual assault in the military and fully funds the President's request for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs.

I also want to make clear my views with respect to the amendments relating to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against the al Queda elements responsible for the attacks of 9/11/2001 and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The President has announced his intention to end combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of this year, and to keep a residual force in Afghanistan for an additional year subject to a Status of Forces Agreement. There is also the question of how the existing use of force authorization applies to military action outside of Afghanistan, such as in Yemen. Given the changing circumstances, it makes sense to end it or to revise the current authorization and adapt it to the current situation.

As for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, it should be terminated. We have withdrawn our troops from Iraq, and we should no longer provide the Executive Branch with a blank check for future military action there. That does not mean that the President could not seek Congressional authorization for future military action in Iraq or, if the conditions apply, exercise his constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief. However, I supported the amendment to prohibit the use of funds in this bill for combat operations in Iraq because I don't think there is a sound case for putting American troops in combat and, in the absence of such a limitation, there is no check on the unlimited use of force in Iraq given the current 2002 authorization to use force there.

Finally, I want to say a word about the Gosar Amendment. This amendment was a blatant effort to exploit fear and misunderstanding. There is no intention to provide Iran, Syria, Hamas, or ISIS with any military assistance. I would strongly oppose any such move. However, the United States, with the support of the State of Israel, has at times provided different forms of assistance to the Palestinian Authority to enhance security and fight terrorism. By including the Palestinian Authority in the list of entities that should be prohibited from receiving assistance, the amendment was an obvious example of what is known around here as a ``gotya'' amendment. It is time to stop playing those political games.

It is my hope that many of my objections to the Defense Appropriations bill will be resolved in Conference with the Senate and that I will be able to support its final passage.

Mr. Chair, in the absence of fresh ideas for the American people, the Republican majority is turning back to old ones and repackaging legislation that has already passed the House for another vote. It may have a nice name, but this bill contains the same unnecessary, irresponsible giveaways to Big Oil at the expense of American taxpayers.

Today's bill would dramatically expand drilling on public lands and offshore, limiting public input into those lease sales and prioritizing drilling above all other uses, including hunting, fishing, and recreation. It undermines the existing procedures that ensure safe and responsible operations, effectively giving oil companies a blank check without appropriate safeguards.

This bill is unnecessary. Oil production in the United States is already at a 25-year high and net oil imports are at a 29-year low. We are already the world's top natural gas producer. This bill will not reduce energy prices or increase energy security. We should not give away our taxpayer-owned natural resources to already-profitable big oil companies. I urge a no vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Evelyn Gross who died on June 18th in Plano, Texas at the age of 92 after a long battle with lung cancer.

Evelyn Gross was the mother of Alan Gross, the subcontractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development, who has been imprisoned in Cuba for the last four and a half years for working to increase Internet access for Cuba's small Jewish community.

Evelyn Gross's last wish was to see her son before she died, but despite repeated pleas for a humanitarian furlough to visit her, the Cuban officials refused to grant Alan's request to do so.

As the end of her life approached, in a fit of desperation, Alan went on a hunger strike to protest the failure of both governments to resolve this issue and free him. At his mother's urging, Alan stopped the hunger strike after nine days.

Judy Gross, Alan's wife said that the death of Evelyn Gross was a devastating blow to Alan, who was extremely close to his mother and was already in a fragile state.

Before his arrest, Alan spoke to her twice a day by phone. We are all very worried about how he is coping with her death.

Judy Gross fears that her husband will sink deeper into depression and give up all hope of ever coming home.

She worries that the pain of not being able to see his mother before her passing could start Alan down a dangerous path of destructive behavior.

Before the death of Evelyn Gross, many of Alan's friends had already grown deeply concerned about Alan's physical and emotional well being.

Alan lives confined in a small prison cell 23 hours a day with two other inmates. Until recently, prison officials kept the lights on in the cell 24 hours a day.

Weakened by the prospect of having to serve out a 15-year prison sentence under these conditions, Alan's health and emotional state have suffered. He has lost over 100 pounds, he suffers from chronic pain, and his loss of hope and increasing despondency have caused those who love him to fear that he is at risk of losing his will to live.

When Alan turned 65 last month, he swore that it would be his last birthday in prison. He said he was determined to come home, alive or dead.

I am taking the floor today to urge the Government of Cuba to free Alan Gross and for President Obama to do everything he can to obtain his release.

I fear for what might happen if nothing is done soon to free Alan Gross.