Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on January 28, the White House refused to recognize the Taliban as a terrorist group, calling them an ``armed insurgency'' instead. What part of terrorism don't they understand?

Under Federal law, a ``terrorist organization'' must meet three criteria: be foreign, be engaged in terrorist activity and intimidation, and threaten the security of the United States of America.

The Department of the Treasury and the National Counterterrorism Center define the Taliban as a ``terrorist organization,'' but the White House refuses to do so. Common sense says, if we can't call our enemy what they are, then how can we fight them?

Mr. Speaker, my resolution is simple. It urges the administration to publicly recognize the Taliban as a terrorist organization. We could use a little straight talk around here.

I ask for your support of House Concurrent Resolution 13.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It ensures that agencies must take into consideration the impacts on low-income communities when they develop regulations.

This amendment is based on a 1994 executive order from President Clinton that was intended to protect low-income populations from the negative effects of regulations.

Burdensome regulations have a real impact on families, regardless of their race or ethnicity. What makes sense on a bureaucrat's desk in Washington does not always work in the real world. In fact, these regulations are hurting people, especially in economically depressed communities. People have lost jobs and are facing increasing prices for energy, food, health care, and more.

The families who bear the brunt are not just statistics. They are fellow Americans. We need to show compassion towards them, especially those most vulnerable.

Regulations, as you have heard, are costing our economy $1.8 trillion each year, costing the average family $15,000. So what does that mean for the

farmer in San Joaquin Valley, California, or the coal miner in Hazard, Kentucky, or the widow on a fixed income in Marietta, Ohio? They are worried about providing for their families. What happens if they lose their livelihood because of a new regulation?

The bureaucrats in Washington who are writing these excessive regulations are seemingly focused on saving the world but are forgetting what is happening to American families. I want them to understand the impact they are having on people's lives.

The costs of these regulations are born by people who can least afford it, not by the agencies writing the regulations. These bureaucrats should get out from behind their desks and come to communities in West Virginia and Georgia and Montana and across the Nation that are still struggling economically.

This is not just about coal miners and the energy industry. Excessive regulations are hurting farmers, manufacturers, health care workers, and small businesses of every kind.

Rather than blindly issuing regulations in pursuit of an ideological goal, agencies should stop and consider what they are doing, be more empathetic, take into account what would happen to a family that is living paycheck to paycheck or a senior on fixed income.

Too often, Americans all across this country believe that no one in Washington really cares about them. This amendment will help change that perception. Let's show some compassion to people and families that are struggling.

Plain and simple: we must ensure that the Federal agencies truly, truly take into consideration those that bear the burden of these regulations.

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte, for his support of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, we just heard the chairman talk about, this is an executive order. And I have heard from folks on the other side that this is an executive order. Perhaps it is time to codify this executive order.

If it had merit back in 1994, let's make it the rule; make it a law. This amendment will accomplish that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, after more than 40 years in the construction trade, my friend John Clarke of Wheeling has retired.

John is a lifelong West Virginian, the former president of Local 141 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and served on the International Executive Committee of IBEW.

After serving in Vietnam with the Marine Corps, John returned home and gave back to his community, serving on over 25 local charitable and professional organizations.

IBEW International President Ed Hill has said, ``Working families in West Virginia have never had a better friend than John Clarke.'' And more importantly, in a world conflicted with partisanship, John proudly put his country first, not his political affiliation.

He made a difference. His decades of devotion to his country and his community can only be matched by his commitment to his wife of 43 years, Margaret, and his two sons, Justin and Lucas.

I extend my congratulations to John and wish him well in his retirement.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to ones that have been offered in previous appropriations bills, and all have passed with strong bipartisan support.

This amendment would prohibit agencies like the Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers from being required to spend money on climate change policies forced upon them by the Obama administration and which have been based on biased studies.

In a time of fiscal austerity and prioritization of spending, how can we justify taking money away from our country's leading scientists, physicists, and engineers at the National Energy Technology Lab, but at the same time ask them to research and develop clean coal technologies, carbon capture and sequestration, increased efficiencies for our turbines and power plants, and improving our natural gas extraction techniques from shale?

We should not be reducing funds for rejuvenating our locks and dams along America's rivers, especially when the American Society for Civil Engineers have rated our Nation's waterway infrastructure and land infrastructure a D-plus. Mr. Chairman, a D may be a passing grade for our President, but it is a failing mark in my book.

Spending precious resources to pursue a dubious climate change agenda compromises our clean energy research and America's infrastructure. When similar amendments were adopted previously, some claimed we were denying agencies the use of science.

That is simply not true, Mr. Chairman. We want them to use science, but, Mr. Chairman, I want them to use science that doesn't come with a biased agenda.

For example, the United Nations report says that the Antarctic ice is shrinking; however, NSA's satellites have confirmed that Antarctic ice levels have increased--increased by the size of Greenland, an alltime record.

Congress should not be spending money pursuing ideologically-driven experiments when we face real, serious challenges to our country's infrastructure and its pursuit for energy efficiency. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, because there has been efforts, I suppose, to privatize and consolidate the National Energy Technology Laboratory, also known as NETL, this amendment is offered to eliminate that uncertainty and to continue the present public-private partnership.

NETL is our Nation's premier energy laboratory for fossil energy, using 600 government scientists, technicians, and employees, but they couple that with nearly 1,200 private sector contractors.

Through this partnership, NETL has developed breakthrough research, carbon capture, enhanced natural gas exploration and production, emission control for our power plants, and steam and gas turbine efficiency.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that no other national laboratory has the expertise and the capabilities in fossil fuel energy to develop what NETL already has.

This public-private model has also been used by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control.

Mr. Chairman, if our government research laboratories were privatized, what assurance would Members of Congress have that that research would be done in America?

Just pick up a newspaper on any day and you will read about another corporation moving its research and development work offshore. People looking to privatize and consolidate these laboratories seem to be searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. McKinley

Amendment No. 27: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Sec. 508. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to design, implement, administer, or carry out the

United States Global Climate Research Program National

Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's Agenda

21 sustainable development plan, the May 2013 Technical

Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, or the July 2014

Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Institute for

Sustainable Development and International Relations' pathways

to deep decarbonization report.

Offered By: Mr. McKINLEY

Amendment No. 28: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Sec. 508. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to transform the National Energy Technology

Laboratory into a government-owned, contractor-operated

laboratory, or to consolidate or close the National Energy

Technology Laboratory.

Mr. Chairman, this and other amendments challenging NETL and the fossil fuel research, I would oppose.

I would oppose because NETL is providing us the doorway--the pathway for energy independence. In the past, it has been funded by over $700 million. This administration, in the last 4 or 5 years, has seen that erode down.

Thanks to the appropriators, they have been putting that number back up again to what is appropriate, so it is a big difference, but we have already made a cut from $700 million down to $590-some million. We are talking about a huge cut that has already occurred.

What we have to understand is this facility, just in the sponsor of this amendment, there are 24 projects, $27 million being spent in his State, to be able to take care of 300 jobs that are at risk.

More importantly, what they are doing in these research laboratories

across the country--they are trying to find ways to have carbon capture, for example. If we truly want to reduce our carbon footprint, we need to spend it through the Department of Energy in their laboratories.

They are doing chemical looping. They are trying to develop ways of reducing our carbon footprint by energy-efficient high turbines for boilers to make energy from our coal and natural gas and steam. They are trying to find ways to improve it.

These are things NETL is working with. They are trying to find ways of fracking the gas, so we get more gas out of the ground than we are getting right now. Instead of 15 or 20 percent, we would get 25 or 30 percent.

So NETL has a terrific track record. We have some of the best scientists and physicists in the country trying to improve energy efficiency, and we have already cut their budget by over $100 million in the last few years.

This is not a time, Mr. Chairman, to be cutting their budget and challenging them even further. If we are going to reach this, I want them be able to reach internally to do the things that will give us energy independence.

It is not a time to poke an eye at these hardworking people and what they have done. This is a time to continue the funding and continue this. If we are going to get energy independence, this is a way to do it, so I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and any others that further erodes the power of NETL to do their job.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share a letter from a 10-year-old, Stephanie Santilli of Philippi, West Virginia. She wrote:

Seven-and-a-half years ago on October 4, 2007, my Uncle Jim

passed away due to pancreatic cancer. His cancer was found

too late because of being misdiagnosed too many times, and a

CT scan finally found the cancer. His son Isaac was only 9

when his father died. He is missed by so many. I hope that

some day a cure a found so other families don't have to go

through the same pain we have.

Her story is just one of many across the Nation. For every 100 people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, only six survive.

Madam Speaker, by funding the research to develop a cure, we honor Stephanie's uncle and those we have lost to pancreatic cancer.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 200th anniversary of the Linsly School in Wheeling.

Established in 1814, Linsly is a preparatory school committed to academic excellence and character development. The Linsly School was the first of its kind west of the Allegheny Mountains.

The school's founder, Noah Linsly, was born in Connecticut in 1772. With a law degree from Yale, he began his career at his alma mater. However, recognizing opportunity in this frontier town of Wheeling, Noah Linsly moved there in 1799 and, valuing the need for education, established a school for children.

At the time of Linsly's founding, Napoleon Bonaparte was still causing havoc in Europe. James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, was President; and the British troops had captured and burned Washington, D.C.

200 years ago, there were no phones, no cars, no buses, no trains, just a lawyer with a vision who moved to a small town on the frontier and donated all his belongings to help children get an education.

Reno DiOrio, Linsly's current president for external affairs, said it best when he said:

When one considers everything that has happened to our

country and to our local community in the time period of 200

years--the Civil War, two world wars, the Great Depression,

major floods in the valley, the civil rights movement--we are

proud that Linsly has been able to adapt with the times, to

persevere and overcome challenges, and to remain committed to

its founding principles.

Linsly's motto--``Forward and no retreat''--has been reflected in their emphasis that the greatest accomplishment is not in ever failing, but in rising again after you fall. With this motto, Linsly has continued to believe that children should be challenged and pressed without the possibility that they will quit.

From the fourth President to the 44th President of the United States, Linsly not only has survived, but has thrived. Among its graduates are Federal judges, business leaders, professional athletes, authors, Congressmen, and college presidents, among others.

This little school in Wheeling--this little school in Wheeling, not Boston or Philadelphia--is the 25th oldest boarding school in the United States of America, and its reputation is spread internationally. Now in its 200th year, Linsly is welcoming students from 15 States and 12 foreign nations.

As one of Linsly's greatest benefactors once stated:

Linsly will, in years to come, influence the lives of

hundreds of young people who will go forward to serve their

fellow men.

After 200 years, Linsly has already influenced the lives of hundreds of young people, and now, it is ready for another 200.

Madam Speaker, I ask that we honor this momentous and heartfelt anniversary for a program at Linsly. Happy 200th birthday, Linsly School.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 151st anniversary of West Virginia statehood. On June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the 35th State. From those early years, our State has grown to become a significant contributor to America's economy.

West Virginia is rich in natural resources. It is the largest producer of oil and gas east of the Mississippi. In addition, West Virginia is a national leader in providing statewide access to preschool and is ranked first in the Nation for pay equity between college-educated men and women.

West Virginia is home to nationally recognized centers for research and learning, has produced countless veterans, historical figures, scholars, athletes, and many more for whom we are eternally proud.

Like all West Virginians and as a seventh generation West Virginia native, we take special pride in our wild and wonderful State.

Madam Speaker, I ask that we wish a happy birthday to West Virginia.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is identical to the one that the House adopted last month to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense from spending money on climate change policies forced upon them by the Obama administration.

We shouldn't be diverting financial resources away from the primary missions of our military at a time when we face many threats. Just look at what is happening around the globe: Iraq is splintering; Syria is still engulfed in a civil war; Russia continues its threat against Ukraine and Crimea; North Korea continues its saber rattling; Iran refuses to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons; the Taliban threatens stability in Afghanistan; Hamas has now captured teenagers and is holding one of them, an American teenager, in Israel; and ISIS, Boko Haram, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups are promoting instability and threatening liberty and freedom all around the world.

Madam Chairman, we live in a dangerous world, yet our military is being forced to make due with less. Spending precious resources to follow the Obama climate change agenda will compromise our national security.

When this same amendment was being adopted previously, some people claimed the amendment would prevent the military from using science. That is not true. This amendment merely prevents the Pentagon from spending money--precious money--to implement policies based on the Obama administration's climate assessment and on the United Nations' reports. These are widely acknowledged as political documents, adopted by people with an agenda. We should not be spending money pursuing ideological experiments when we face military challenges around the world. This amendment will ensure we maximize our military might without diverting funds for a politically motivated agenda, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, with all due respect to the minority leader, in this amendment, we are not stopping research, and we are not denying that there is climate change occurring. We are merely saying that we

should not be diverting money to implement the political documents that we list in the amendment.

There is ample research. There is ample reason to continue the work that we are doing, but we don't need to be using these documents that are widely acknowledged as politically-driven documents.

We want to continue the research, but not using these documents, these very specific documents.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year the Office of Management and Budget admitted that they made a mistake when they presented the President's budget request for the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program. Since then, they have expressed that they intend to correct this mistake by offering a supplemental appropriation, because you and I know supplemental appropriations don't happen very often around here.

Congresswoman Napolitano and I have a two-part approach to solve this mistake that has been created by OMB. First, Congress already has unanimously passed our amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act by increasing the authorization by $55 million to take care of this mistake. Under this amendment--this amendment--this bipartisan approach is we are willing to compromise to lower that amount to $21 million and restore the program, keep it intact.

Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't perpetuate the mistake that has been created by OMB by rejecting this amendment. Two mistakes don't make it right.

Mr. Chairman, this program addresses some serious needs and a dropout epidemic among our youth. These are real people with real problems. They need our help. Society may have given up on them, but we in Congress shouldn't.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, this is a mistake caused by OMB. We can correct it right here today. Again, as I said, these are real people with real problems, and they are trying to get on with their lives. The program has worked all across America. Let's not perpetuate this problem by reducing their funds. It was a mistake by OMB, and we can correct it here today.

I ask that my colleagues support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. McKinley

Amendment No. 24: Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $21,000,000) (increased by

$21,000,000)''.

I commend the chairman for bringing this bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2072.

I would specifically like to talk about section 5 of the bill, which is based on legislation I previously introduced, the Safe Housing for Homeless Veterans Act. This is a modification of a bill that passed the House in 2012.

Currently, there are over 2,100 shelters for homeless veterans across the country. Unfortunately, some of these structures have been found to be unsafe for habitation. From 2006 to 2010, more than 1,900 fires had been reported in these structures. In the last decade alone, nearly 200 residents have been lost in unsafe shelters.

How can this slip through the cracks?

The answer is that, currently, there is no law mandating that VA homeless shelters meet building codes. There is only a loosely defined policy that is not universally followed. As a licensed professional engineer, I find this to be a shocking omission in the law governing our veterans' homeless program funds. This bill would require any organization that seeks funding from the VA for services to homeless veterans to have documentation that the shelter meets or exceeds building codes.

As a nation, it should be unacceptable for us to allow homeless veterans to be housed in unsafe conditions. In defense of our country, these men and women were put in harm's way. They should not be in doubt about their own safety now that they are back in this country.

Mr. Speaker, this is commonsense legislation that will ensure that our homeless veterans are in a safe environment while they work and struggle to get back to a normal life.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

During meetings held the past 3 years with West Virginia government officials, they consistently state that the money for infrastructure upgrades like sewer and water lines is an absolute priority. The program that funds these projects is what the gentlewoman said, the Community Development Block Grant, known as CDBG.

This amendment would provide much-needed funding for CDBG and provide vital funds for improving sewer and water lines throughout America, rehabilitating public buildings, and assisting economic development initiatives.

The past 2 years and, again, this year, President Obama has cut crucial funding to the CDBG program. Therefore, I am honored to work with my fellow colleague from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito, on an amendment to once again put the money back into this program that the President took away.

Mr. Chairman, the CDBG program has made a difference in the lives of Americans, thousands of people all across West Virginia, and this country. That is why, even in difficult financial times, we must make sure that the CDBG is fully funded. I urge support of this amendment.