Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I would just say that H.R. 3301 is designed to do one thing: to treat all pipelines and electric transmission lines exactly as natural gas pipelines are treated.

The Great Lakes, we are all committed to. There are 33 separate environmental laws that would not be changed by this legislation.

With all due respect, I view this as a procedural vote that says ``no'' to North American energy security and lower prices. It is time to say ``yes'' and end procedural delays. Please vote ``no'' on this motion and say ``yes'' to North American security.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this Wednesday is National Animal Advocacy Day. On this day, citizens are invited to help enact meaningful protections for animals at the federal, state and local level by being an effective voice for animals.

On National Animal Advocacy Day, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to renew my call for the House of Representatives to pass the Prevent All Soring Tactics Act, or PAST Act. This important measure will stop the soring of horses, an abusive practice used by horse trainers in the Tennessee Walking, Racking, and Spotted Saddle Horse industries. Congress passed the Horse Protection Act more than 40 years ago in order to protect horses from soring. Unfortunately, a failed self-policing enforcement system and inadequate penalties in the statute have allowed this cruelty to continue.

This bipartisan legislation is already cosponsored by well over half of the House and is supported by many organizations in the equine industry, veterinary medicine, and animal protection communities. I am pleased to provide a copy of the list of support for the record to the full House. I urge my colleagues to take swift action to bring this important bill to the floor. Below is a current list of supporters of the PAST Act, H.R. 1518:

Endorsements for the Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act

Horse Organizations

1. American Horse Council

2. American Quarter Horse Association

3. American Morgan Horse Association

4. American Paint Horse Association

5. American Saddlebred Horse Association

6. Appaloosa Horse Club

7. Arizona Coalition for Equines

8. Carolina Walkers, Inc. (South Carolina)

9. Delaware Equine Council

10. Equine Voices Rescue & Sanctuary (Arizona)

11. European Tennessee Walking Horse Association

12. Fenway Foundation for Friesian Horses

13. For The Tennessee Walking Horse

14. Friends of Sound Horses

15. Friesian Horse Association of North America

16. Gaitway Walking Horse Association (Missouri)

17. Idaho Horse Council

18. International Friesian Show Horse Association

19. International Walking Horse Association

20. Maryland Horse Council

21. Michigan Horse Council

22. Minnesota Horse Council

23. Mountain Pleasure Horse Association (Kentucky)

24. National Plantation Walking Horse Association

25. National Walking Horse Association

26. Natural Walking Horses (Europe)

27. New York State Horse Breeders Association

28. New York State Horse Council

29. New York State Plantation Walking Horse Club

30. Northern California Walking Horse Association

31. One Horse at a Time, Inc. (Kentucky)

32. Pennsylvania Equine Council

33. Pennsylvania Pleasure Walking Horse Association

34. Pinto Horse Association of America

35. Plantation Walking Horse Association of California

36. Plantation Walking Horses of Maryland

37. Professional Horsemen's Association of America

38. Pure Pleasure Gaited Horse Association (Oklahoma)

39. Rocky Mountain Horse Association (Kentucky)

40. Sound Trails and Rails Society (Georgia)

41. South Carolina Horse Council

42. South Dakota Quarter Horse Association

43. Southern Comfort Gaited Horse Club (Idaho)

44. Speak Up for Horses, Inc. (Kentucky)

45. Tennessee Walking Horse Exhibitors Association of

Montana

46. Tennessee Walking Horse Association of New Jersey, Inc.

47. Tennessee Walking Horse Association of Oklahoma

48. Tennessee Walking Horse Exhibitors Association of

Oregon

49. Tennessee Walking Horse Heritage Society

50. Texas State Horse Council

51. United Pleasure Walking Horse Association (Missouri)

52. United Professional Horsemen's Association

53. United States Equestrian Federation

54. Walking Horse Association of Michigan

55. World Walking Horse Association

56. Yankee Walkers/Gaited Horses of New England (Maine/New

Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island/Connecticut, and

Vermont)

Veterinary and Animal Health

1. American Veterinary Medical Association

2. American Association of Equine Practitioners

3. National Association of Federal Veterinarians

4. U.S. Animal Health Association

5. Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association

6. Veterinarians for Equine Welfare

7. Alabama Veterinary Medical Association

8. Alaska Veterinary Medical Association

9. Arizona Veterinary Medical Association

10. Arkansas Veterinary Medical Association

11. California Veterinary Medical Association

12. Colorado Veterinary Medical Association

13. Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association

14. Delaware Veterinary Medical Association

15. District of Columbia Veterinary Medical Association

16. Florida Association of Equine Practitioners

17. Florida Veterinary Medical Association

18. Georgia Veterinary Medical Association

19. Hawaii Veterinary Medical Association

20. Idaho Veterinary Medical Association

21. Illinois Veterinary Medical Association

22. Indiana Veterinary Medical Association

23. Iowa Veterinary Medical Association

24. Kansas Veterinary Medical Association

25. Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association

26. Louisiana Veterinary Medical Association

27. Maine Veterinary Medical Association

28. Maryland Veterinary Medical Association

29. Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association

30. Michigan Veterinary Medical Association

31. Mississippi Veterinary Medical Association

32. Missouri Veterinary Medical Association

33. Montana Veterinary Medical Association

34. Nebraska Veterinary Medical Association

35. Nevada Veterinary Medical Association

36. New Hampshire Veterinary Medical Association

37. New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association

38. New Mexico Veterinary Medical Association

39. New York State Veterinary Medical Association

40. North Carolina Veterinary Medical Association

41. North Dakota Veterinary Medical Association

42. Ohio Veterinary Medical Association

43. Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association

44. Oregon Veterinary Medical Association

45. Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association

46. Puerto Rico Veterinary Medical Association

47. Rhode Island Veterinary Medical Association

48. South Carolina Association of Veterinarians

49. South Dakota Veterinary Medical Association

50. Tennessee Veterinary Medical Association

51. Texas Veterinary Medical Association

52. Utah Veterinary Medical Association

53. Vermont Veterinary Medical Association

54. Virginia Veterinary Medical Association

55. Washington State Veterinary Medical Association

56. West Virginia Veterinary Medical Association

57. Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association

58. Wyoming Veterinary Medical Association

59. Donna Preston Moore, DVM, former head of USDA's Horse

Protection Program

60. Tracy A. Turner, DVM, MS

61. Michelle Abraham, Resident, New Bolton Center,

University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine

62. John C. Haffner, DVM, ABVP(Eq)

63. Susan Botts, DVM

64. Angela M. Dion, DVM

65. Michelle Abraham, Resident, New Bolton Center,

University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine

66. Hanna Galantino-Homer, VMD, PHD

67. Alicia Grossman, DVM

68. Sue Lindborg, CVT Research Specialist New Bolton

Center, University of PA School Of Veterinary Medicine

69. Midge Leitch, VMD, former head of Radiology, New Bolton

Center, University of PA School Of Veterinary Medicine

70. Harry Werner, VMD, past president, American Association

of AAEP

71. Judith L. Ford, Veterinary Technician

72. Benson B. Martin, DVM, Associate Professor Sports

Medicine, New Bolton Center, University of PA School of

Veterinary Medicine

73. Nat Messer, DVM, University of Missouri College of

Veterinary Medicine

74. Mary A. Robinson, VMD, PhD

75. Mary Lynn Stanton, DVM

76. Joy Tomlinson, DVM

77. Steve O'Grady, DVM, APF

Animal Protection

1. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals

2. Animal Law Coalition

3. Animal Legal Defense Fund

4. Animal Protection Voters (New Mexico)

5. Animal Welfare Institute

6. Best Friends Animal Society

7. Dakin Humane Society (Massachusetts)

8. Equine Welfare Alliance

9. Homes for Horses Coalition

10. Horse Harbor Foundation (Washington State)

11. Horse Haven of Tennessee

12. Humane Society Legislative Fund

13. Michigan Horse Welfare Coalition

14. Mississippi Horses

15. Nevins Farm & Equine Center, Massachusetts Society for

the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

16. Oregon Horse Welfare Council

17. Richmond Friends of Animals (Virginia)

18. Second Chance Ranch (Washington State)

19. Tennessee Voters for Animal Protection

20. The Humane Society of the United States

21. Virginia Alliance for Animal Shelters

22. Virginia Equine Welfare Society

23. Virginia Federation of Humane Societies

24. Virginia Beach Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals

Horse Industry Professionals

1. Bill Harlin, Past President, Tennessee Walking Horse

Breeders and Exhibitors Association and owner of Harlinsdale

Farm

2. Clay Harlin, former Senior Vice-President, Tennessee

Walking Horse Breeders and Exhibitors Association

3. Marty Irby, Past President, Tennessee Walking Horse

Breeders and Exhibitors Association

4. Chuck Cadle, Past Executive Director, Tennessee Walking

Horse Breeders and Exhibitors Association

5. Georgina Bloomberg, professional equestrian sponsored by

Ariat International

6. Rick Wies, Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders and

Exhibitors Association former VP, Pleasure Horse Division

7. Susan Kayne, host of ``Unbridled'' television show

8. Pat Parelli, founder of Parelli Natural Horsemanship

9. Tom Seay, Best of America by Horseback, trail riding TV

show

10. Jan Ebeling, dressage trainer, member of the 2012

Olympic dressage team for the USA and co-owner of Rafalca

11. Dr. April Austin, USDF Bronze, Silver and Gold medalist

12. Monty Roberts, award-winning trainer, best-selling

author of The Man Who Listens to Horses

13. Carl Bledsoe, former member of Walking Horse Trainers'

Association

14. Pamela Reband, MD, Board of Directors member and former

Vice President of TWHBEA

15. Dr. Rebecca Gimenez, Technical Large Animal Emergency

Rescue

16. Eric Gray, walking horse farrier

17. Leslie Desmond, natural horsemanship clinician and

author

18. Gael Borquin, dressage and eventing coach

19. Karl Mikolka, Former Chief Rider, Spanish Riding

School, Vienna, Austria and USDF Hall of Fame

20. E. Allen Buck, Sympathetic Horsemanship

21. Steffen Peters, American Olympian and FEI rider

22. Shannon Peters, dressage instructor and FEI rider

23. Sheryl Rudolph, FITS/Fun in the Saddle, Inc.

24. Heather Barklow, Equine Connections, LLC

25. Diane Sept, Connected Riding Senior Instructor

26. Anita Adams, dressage trainer and FEI rider

27. Mary Werning, dressage trainer and FEI Rider, USDF

Medalist

28. Maria Lisa Eastman, Raintree Equine Assisted Services,

equine therapy program

29. Dr. Christine Teicheira, equine and human chiropractor

30. Gigi Nutter, USDF Gold Medalist, dressage trainer,

owner Touch-N-Go Farm

31. Lisa Kelly Simmons, Lipizzan breeder, Past Director of

the United States Lipizzan Federation

32. Jayne Fingerhut, MA, CMT, USDF Regional Champion Rider,

equine business patent holder and manufacturer

33. Michelle Andrews Sabol, director of an equestrian

therapy program

34. Holly Mason, Equine Biomechanics Specialist, author of

It's Never Too Late

35. Terri Farley (author, the Phantom Stallion series)

Newspaper Editorial Boards

1. The Tennessean

2. Chattanooga Times Free Press

Law Enforcement

1. Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

2. National Sheriffs' Association

3. Sheriff Harrison Moss, Adair County, KY

4. Sheriff Stan Hudson, Caldwell County, KY

5. Sheriff Bill Marcum, Calloway County, KY

6. Sheriff Keith Cane, Daviess County, KY

7. Sheriff Rick Clemons, Grayson County, KY

8. Sheriff Bruce Hampton, Harrison County, KY

9. Sheriff Frank Latham, Hopkins County, KY

10. Sheriff Charles Lee Korzenborn, Kenton County, KY

11. Sheriff Merle Edlin, Larue County, KY

12. Sheriff Jimmy Clements, Marion County, KY

13. Sheriff Patrick Boggs, Mason County, KY

14. Sheriff William ``Butch'' Kerrick, Meade County, KY

Public Opinion in Key States with Largest Tennessee Walking Horse

Industry

A poll conducted in December 2012 by Mason-Dixon Polling &

Research found that 75% of Tennessee voters and 69% of

Kentucky voters support federal legislation to strengthen the

Horse Protection Act by ending the current, failed system of

industry self-policing, banning the use of chains and stacks

(devices implicated in the soring process) on horses at

shows, and increasing penalties for violating the law.

Legislators

Sponsor of original Horse Protection Act of 1970: Former

Senator Joseph Tydings

Current bipartisan cosponsors of the PAST Act: 51 Senators

on S. 1406 / 269 Representatives on H.R. 1518 (320 total)

Celebrity Endorsements

1. Alyssa Milano, actress, Charmed, Project Runway All-

Stars

2. Priscilla Presley, film and TV actress, Dallas, The

Naked Gun

3. Emmylou Harris, singer-songwriter and 12-time Grammy

winner

4. Kesha, platinum recording singer-songwriter

5. Viggo Mortensen, actor, The Lord of the Rings

6. Wendie Malick, actress, Hot in Cleveland

7. Loretta Swit, stage and TV actress, MASH

8. Jillian Michaels, trainer on The Biggest Loser

9. Mark Miller, musician, Sawyer Brown

10. Lynn Anderson, singer-songwriter

11. Jenna Morasca, actress, model, grand prize winner of

Survivor: The Amazon

12. Alexandra Paul, actress, Baywatch

13. Dawn Olivieri, film and TV actress, True Blood

14. Joe Camp, director of Benji films, author of Soul of a

Horse

15. Kelly Carlson, actress, Nip/Tuck

16. Mary Ann Kennedy, singer-songwriter

17. Lacy J. Dalton, singer-songwriter

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a motion to recommit that we don't need, it is this one. The entire purpose of the Electricity Security and Affordability Act, H.R. 3826, is to ensure that America remains competitive in the global marketplace by lowering electricity costs.

The Energy Information Agency reported recently that 41 out of 50 States have higher electricity rates today than they did 4 years ago. Primarily, these electricity rates are going up because of the policies of the Obama administration.

This act specifically allows in the future the opportunity to build a new coal-powered plant in America the way coal-powered plants are being built around the world. We don't anticipate one to be built as long as natural gas prices are low, but if they go up, as they have in Europe, we want the flexibility to build a coal-powered plant in America.

The President talks frequently about an all-of-the-above energy policy, and yet, his policies, his regulations, his executive orders do not allow us to use as much coal. We simply want that flexibility. We are not mandating it, but it gives us additional flexibility.

For that reason, I would ask us to defeat the motion to recommit and adopt H.R. 3826.

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

Partnership for a

Better Energy Future,

February 28, 2014.

To the Members of the House of Representatives: The

Partnership for a Better Energy Future (the Partnership), a

coalition of more than 100 organizations representing over 80

percent of the U.S. economy, urges your support for H.R.

3826, the ``Electricity Security and Affordability Act,''

which is expected to receive a vote in the House next week.

H.R. 3826 provides a more reasonable path forward in relation

to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) greenhouse gas

(GHG) regulations, while also protecting jobs, economic

growth and international competitiveness.

The Partnership's fundamental mission is to promote an

``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy that ensures the

continued availability of reliable and affordable energy for

American families and businesses while also protecting the

environment. Unfortunately, the EPA's proposed GHG

regulations on new power plants fail to meet this test.

The EPA has begun implementing a suite of new regulations

designed to address GHG emissions from the electric power

sector. By law, these regulations are supposed to be flexible

and take into account cost and commercial availability;

however, in practice the EPA's proposed GHG regulations have

been the exact opposite. The very first regulation the EPA

unveiled, which applies to new power plants, mandates

technologies that are not yet commercially available--

effectively banning the construction of coal-fired power

plants going forward. With similar regulations on existing

power plants due in June, followed immediately by regulations

on other energy-intensive industries, the EPA's heavy-handed

approach is not an encouraging sign for the regulated

community.

H.R. 3826 provides a reasonable path forward for the EPA's

power plant GHG regulations, allowing the agency to regulate

while also protecting a diverse energy mix. For new power

plants, the bill requires separate standards for coal and

gas, with the coal standard subcategorized for coal types and

aligned with the best-performing commercially available

generation technologies. It provides a reasonable path

forward for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration (CCS),

prohibiting the EPA from mandating its use until the

technology has been deployed by at least six units located at

different commercial power plants in the United States--in

other words, until it is truly ready. Finally, it allows the

EPA to craft rules or guidelines for existing power plants,

but requires Congress to review them and set a start date

before they can take effect.

The members of the Partnership support regulations that are

cost-effective, technologically achievable and allow for a

robust ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy. H.R. 3826 would

achieve these goals by allowing the EPA to regulate in a

balanced, reasonable fashion. The Partnership urges your

support for H.R. 3826.

Sincerely,

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute;

Alabama Automotive Manufacturer's Association; Alaska Chamber

of Commerce; American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity;

American Farm Bureau Federation; American Fuel and

Petrochemical Manufacturers; American Knife Manufacturers

Association; American Petroleum Institute; American Road and

Transportation Builders Association; Arkansas State Chamber

of Commerce; Associated Industries of Florida; Associated

Industries of Missouri; Association of American Railroads;

Automotive Recyclers Association; Balanced Energy for Texas;

Baltimore Washington Corridor Chamber; Bettisworth North

Architects and Planners; Bismarck-Mandan Chamber of Commerce;

Brick Industry Association; Buckeye Power, Inc.

California Cotton Ginners Association; California Cotton

Growers Association; California Manufacturers & Technology

Association; Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry;

Consumer Energy Alliance; CropLife America; Dallas Regional

Chamber; Electric Reliability Coordinating Council; Florida

State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Forging Industry

Association; Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce; Georgia

Association of Manufacturers; Georgia Chamber of Commerce;

Greater Houston Partnership; Greater North Dakota Chamber;

Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce; Greater Pittsburgh

Chamber of Commerce; Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition; Illinois

Coal Association; Illinois Manufacturers' Association.

Independent Petroleum Association of America; Indiana

Chamber of Commerce; Indiana Manufacturers Association;

Industrial Minerals Association--North America; Institute for

21st Century Energy; Iowa Association of Business and

Industry; Kansas Chamber of Commerce; Kentucky Coal

Association; Kerrville Area Chamber of Commerce; Longview

Chamber of Commerce; Louisiana Association of Business and

Industry; Lubbock Chamber of Commerce; Metals Service Center

Institute; Michigan Manufacturers Association; Michigan

Railroads Association; Midwest Food Processors Association

Inc.; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Mississippi

Manufacturers Association; Missouri

Chamber of Commerce; Montana Chamber of Commerce.

Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce; National Association of

Home Builders; National Association of Manufacturers;

National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Marine

Manufacturers Association; National Mining Association;

National Oilseed Processors; Association; National Rural

Electric Cooperative Association; Natural Gas Supply

Association; Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Non-

Ferrous Founders' Society; North Carolina Chamber of

Commerce; Oklahoma Railroad Association; Ohio Chamber of

Commerce; Ohio Coal Association; Ohio Manufacturers'

Association; Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc.;

Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy; Pennsylvania Coal

Alliance; Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association.

Portland Cement Association; Printing Industries of

America; Railway Supply Industry, Inc.; Small Business &

Entrepreneurship Council; South Carolina Chamber of Commerce;

Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance; SPI: The

Plastics Industry Trade Association; Tennessee Chamber of

Commerce & Industry; Texas Association of Business; Texas

Cotton Ginners' Association; Texas Railroad Association; The

Chamber of Sparks, Reno & Northern Nevada; The Fertilizer

Institute; The Vinyl Institute; U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

United Transportation Union; Valve Manufacturers Association

of America; Virginia Chamber of Commerce; West Virginia

Chamber of Commerce; Western Agricultural Processors

Association; Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group Inc.;

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce; Wyoming Chamber

Partnership.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3826.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise this afternoon in support of H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act.

Recently, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University named Jonathan Turley issued a dire warning. Professor Turley said that he voted for President Obama in the last election, that he agrees philosophically with President Obama on many issues, but he said that, if left unchecked, the U.S. President could effectively become a government unto himself. He was referring to the fact that this President has been overly aggressive in the use of executive orders and regulations through various governmental agencies to accomplish his political goals.

The reason that we are here today is, with this legislation, it is our hope that we can overturn one of the most extreme regulations of the Obama administration.

In January of next year, it is anticipated that they will finalize a rule from EPA that will make it impossible to build a new coal-powered plant in America. That is hard to believe that that can be the situation in our great country, particularly since 40 percent of our electricity comes from coal. The reason that it would be impossible to build a new coal-powered plant because of these new EPA regulations is the fact that the emission standards have been set so high, and I might add that it is pretty clear that those emission standards, the way they were set, violates the Energy Security Act of 2005.

We have written a letter to EPA setting out our concerns. They still have not responded to us. We have talked to lawyers throughout the country who are ready to file a lawsuit if this happens because it is impossible to believe that the three plants in America that used to set the emission standards for new coal-powered plants, none of those plants are in existence today. None of them are operating today. So our legislation, we believe, is a reasonable approach to a serious problem for America.

I might add that 41 out of 50 States last year indicated that their electricity rates have gone up under the Obama administration. I know that the President is greatly concerned about the less fortunate in our society. He has talked a lot about the minimum wage bill, for example, but these electricity rates going up hit the most vulnerable in our society the most, particularly those on fixed incomes. Yet it is his policies that are driving up these electricity costs.

So the legislation that we have on the floor today is very simple. First of all, it acknowledges for the first time by legislation that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases. This bill goes farther than any other bill has. So you can regulate greenhouse gases, but when you set the emissions standard, the unit must be in operation for a period of time. It must be commercially available to the utilities to buy it, as opposed to the proposed regulation in which the technology is simply not available.

So our legislation, as I said, we don't anticipate a new coal-powered plant to be built anytime soon in America because our natural gas prices are so low. But in Europe, which it is acknowledged is the green sector of the world, they mothballed 30 gigawatts of gas-powered plants in the last 20 months because the gas prices coming from Russia are so expensive that it is raising their electricity rates to such an extent that it is damaging the area. With our legislation, if those gas prices go up, an option available to the American people, to the American utility sector, is they can go out and build a coal-powered plant with reasonable regulations.

Then the second thing that our legislation does--and when I say ``our,'' I am talking about Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, has introduced this bill in the U.S. Senate. I, along with Democratic support, was able to get it out of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

So this debate is vitally important today because the President is going so fast, in such an extreme way, that it would make it impossible to use coal in America with a new plant, and we have never had a national debate on the issue. So today we can at least have this debate.

The second thing that our legislation does applies to existing plants. EPA said they are going to regulate existing coal plants. We say go ahead and do it, set the standards, but Congress will set the effective date for that regulation.

It is a very simple piece of legislation, one that I think is necessary to protect the American people and to ensure that America remains competitive in the global marketplace.

In addition to that, I want to make one other comment. Emissions from the energy sector in America are the lowest, CO2 emissions are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. So America does not have to take a backseat to anyone on having a clean emission standard and regulation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority whip.

I would just reiterate that America doesn't have to take a backseat to anyone on its emissions from energy sources. Our emissions today are lower than they were 20 years ago. Why should the U.S. unilaterally take this extreme position and other countries around the world, particularly in Europe and in Asia, are using coal and using coal, and we don't even have the flexibility to do that when they finalize this rule. So that is what we are up to today.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

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

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you we are not speaking from fear today. I can assure you we are not being parochial about coal. Coal is still the base load for this country--for manufacturing, industrial use, electricity at home, and for our ability to compete in the world.

I have great admiration and respect for the gentleman from California, and I am sorry that he has made the decision to leave Congress after having a distinguished career, but I can tell you there is no power plant operating in America today that is using carbon capture and sequestration, because the technology is not available.

Now, there are some plants being built with government support and would not be built without that government support, but they are not in operation. There is a difference. When scrubbers were mandated by the EPA, scrubbers were already being put in plants at private expense. The government didn't pay for those scrubbers. They were already being used. Unlike this proposed regulation, there is no technology available to meet the emission standard, so there is a significant difference in what has happened and what is being proposed.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Indiana, Congresswoman Brooks.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Chairman, to conclude, I would point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle there has been a lot of discussion today about the availability of carbon capture and sequestration. Let's not forget that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 said:

Emission standards will not be set by plants receiving

funds from the Clean Energy Initiative at the Department of

Energy.

To my friend from the west coast, it is costing $5 billion, and the president of the Southern Company said:

This plant cannot be consistently replicated on a national

level and cannot be the primary basis for new emission

standards.

That is because they are artificially concocted.

So our legislation simply says, in the future, if natural gas prices go up, America, like most every other country in the world, will have the option of building a new coal-powered plant.

I think it is a reasonable approach. It has bipartisan support.

This is the first time that we have been able to have a national debate with this President, who has already made up his mind he does not want coal for America. This is our opportunity to express the opinion of the American people that we need coal moving into the future.

I would urge the adoption of H.R. 3826, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I certainly have a great deal of respect for the gentlelady from California, and I might add, we have heard a lot today about climate change.

Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, herself, stated in a hearing:

We will not ultimately be able to change the amount of

CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone.

By that, she meant the United States, and there are a couple of reasons she said that. First of all, 96 percent of CO2 emissions are naturally occurring; manmade is around 4 percent.

I might also point out that, in the recent fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they acknowledged a lack of warming since 1998, and they acknowledged the growing discrepancy between their climate model projections versus actual readings.

So it is not that people are denying. It is that there is a significant difference among the scientific community about what is manmade CO2 contributing and what is naturally occurring

Mr. Chair, what I object to is that the EPA would use that and mandate that private industry build that technology here in the U.S. And I think that your amendment would allow them to do that, and that is what I object to.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the purpose of our legislation is, whenever EPA sets the standard, we want the technology to be in the U.S. for at least a year--operating for a year, and six units have the proof of that; so that is why we object to the gentlelady's amendment, and I would urge Members to vote against her amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the gentlelady from Illinois. I might say, this legislation would never have been necessary if EPA had adopted a standard that had been adequately demonstrated and was not in violation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

I would also say in wanting to add this language to the bill, EPA itself, in discussing its proposed regulation, projected that its rule would result in almost zero CO2 emission changes or quantified benefits in cost by 2022. So even EPA does not think that their regulation is going to really significantly reduce CO2 emissions because 96 percent of CO2 emissions are naturally occurring; less than 4 percent are man-made.

I might also point out once again that no one is a denier of climate change, but more and more scientists seem to be disagreeing with the impact of manmade CO2 versus naturally occurring

I yield myself the balance of my time.

In reply to this case closed argument, I would just point out that the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which came out in the fall, acknowledged a lack of warming since 1998 and a growing discrepancy between the model projections and the reality of the observations actually made; that the discrepancy between the models and reality was increasing. It also acknowledged the evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to the increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It also acknowledged that sea level rising during the period 1920-1950 was the same as in 1995 to 2012. Now that is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

With that, I respectfully request that we defeat the gentlelady's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out once again, as I did in the beginning of this debate, that the Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, recently made the statement that:

If left unchecked, the United States President could

effectively become a government unto himself because of

excessive executive orders and excessive regulations.

The only reason that we are here today is that the President, without any really national debate, went to Copenhagen and other international groups and made commitments for the U.S. on the reduction of CO2 emissions.

In the energy sector, our emissions are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. If EPA had adopted emission standards and technology was available that had been adequately demonstrated to meet those standards, we wouldn't have any problem, but they did not do that. In fact, they violated the 2005 Energy Policy Act in setting these emission standards.

We tried to talk to EPA; we tried to talk to the President; we tried to talk to his representatives; and we got the cold shoulder. So the only option available to us in trying to overcome these executive orders and regulations is to adopt some legislation.

In our legislation, we don't expect a coal plant to be built, but if natural gas prices go up, America--like every other country in the world practically--will be able to build a coal plant, and the technology will be available to meet those emission standards.

With that, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we believe the President's views are extreme when he sets a goal of reducing by 83 percent below the 2005 emission levels.

For that, we think this legislation is absolutely essential to give the American people the flexibility in the future to build a coal plant to help meet the electricity needs of this great country.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2126) to facilitate better alignment, cooperation, and best practices between commercial real estate landlords and tenants regarding energy efficiency in buildings, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

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

The benefits of energy efficiency are something that both the Republicans and Democrats agree on as evidenced by the modest but robust package we are considering today. Reducing waste and consuming less energy are commonsense strategies to cut costs and address U.S. energy demand.

I want to thank Mr. Welch and Mr. McKinley for their leadership on this energy efficiency bill. Both they and their staffs have worked very hard on this legislation as have the committee staffs, both Democrat and Republican.

The U.S. has steadily improved its energy productivity as a result of advances in technology, driven primarily by private sector innovation. In particular, the industrial and manufacturing sectors have undertaken significant efforts to improve efficiency and reap the resulting economic benefits. The Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2014 supports these ongoing efforts by spurring the use of energy efficiency technologies and processes in the commercial, industrial, and public sectors of our economy. The legislation saves consumers money through lowered energy consumption, helps create jobs, makes our country more energy independent, and will produce associated environmental benefits. Critically, this bill will make the country's largest energy user, the Federal Government, more efficient, thereby saving taxpayer money.

I am delighted that we have this bill on the floor today. I look forward to working with the Members of the body to make sure that we pass this legislation, and I would urge their support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, February 26, 2014.

Hon. Bill Shuster,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Shuster, Thank you for your letter regarding

H.R. 2126, the ``Better Buildings Act of 2013.'' As you

noted, there are provisions of H.R. 2126 that fall within the

Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, and I appreciate your willingness to forgo

action on the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to

the House floor for consideration.

I agree that your decision should not alter or diminish the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure with respect to the appointment of conferees

or any future claim over the subject matters contained in the

bill or similar legislation, and I will support the

appointment of Members of the Committee to any conference

committee on such provisions.

I will include a copy of your letter and this response in

the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 2126 on

the House floor.

Sincerely,

Fred Upton,

Chairman.

I want to thank the gentleman for his remarks. Also, I certainly want to thank Ms. Eshoo of California for the leadership she's had on this position, as well as our chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton.

At this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who is the author of title I of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have any more speakers, so I would reserve the balance of my time if the gentleman wants to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add on the words of the gentleman from Vermont, first of all, once again, just to say how much we enjoyed working with him and the others on this important legislation.

We do firmly believe that the American people will benefit from this. We all recognize that energy is one of the components that goes a long way in determining how competitive America can be in the global marketplace, and any time you can improve efficiency, you improve that competitiveness. So I would urge all of our Members to support H.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2014.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last 6 weeks, every Member of Congress has heard from constituents who have been very much concerned about the cancelation of health insurance policies, primarily because someone has determined that their health insurance policy is not adequate.

We are hearing about higher premiums, and then we all know about the difficulty of getting on the Web site to select your insurance policy.

So there is a lot of confusion out there, there is a lot of anger out there, and there are a lot of people that are asking the U.S. Congress to help.

We want to hear how this ObamaCare is affecting individual Americans from coast to coast. We have developed a Web site called gop.gov. We would invite those people who are experiencing difficulty to go on gop.gov, click on ``your story,'' and tell us explicitly what experiences you are having.

This is very important and we appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.

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

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, we have had a number of hearings over the last year, and we are all quite excited about the additional production of natural gas and oil in America. As many people know, we now are the number one producer of natural gas in the world and the number one producer of oil in the world. This has come about because of the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector and development of these properties on private lands, primarily in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and Texas.

So we are all excited about the opportunity for energy independence in America and certainly hopeful to reach a point where we are less dependent on oil and other products coming from the Middle East.

I want to thank Mike Pompeo, a member from Kansas, for authoring this important legislation. Although we have become the number one producer and we have an abundance of natural gas today, we still have one key problem. To put it simply, we don't have the necessary pipeline infrastructure to move natural gas from where it is produced to where it is needed most.

I would like to just illustrate how some States are being harmed. According to the Energy Information Administration, in January this year we saw several States with residential natural gas prices way above the national average. For example, New Hampshire was 30 percent above the national average; Massachusetts was 43 percent; Maine, 67 percent; and Florida, 68 percent. Unfortunately, those living in these and many other States can expect to see higher prices once again this winter, and this is precisely why we are bringing to the floor H.R. 1900.

H.R. 1900 simply would bring certainty in agency accountability to the natural gas pipeline permitting process. It would allow natural gas pipelines to be built in a safe, responsible, and timely manner. It would also make existing natural gas pipelines safer.

During the legislative hearing on H.R. 1900, we heard testimony from industry of a corrosive natural gas pipeline that could not be replaced in a timely manner because an agency missed the deadline to issue a permit by nearly a year. The American people demand better than this.

So as we hear discussion and consider amendments to H.R. 1900, I want to thank once again the members of the subcommittee, the staff, and Representative Pompeo for all the work on this important legislation.

I respectfully reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), the author of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I might just make one comment. As the gentlelady from Florida indicated, the Obama administration has indicated their opposition to this bill. But I will tell you, we have large groups, the National Rural Electric Co-Ops, supporting this bill; the Public Power Association is supporting this bill.

And the New England Ratepayers Association wrote a letter to us saying, currently, New England ratepayers suffer from the highest electricity rates of

any region in the country. A significant reason for this is the limited capacity of natural gas pipeline which the electricity generators throughout New England rely on.

So we are trying to respond to the needs of people, and we recognize that the economy has been weak, and there are not a lot of pipelines being built right now, although there is one in my home State of Kentucky.

But we want to set the framework so that when the time comes, these pipeline companies are able to move and move quickly with adequate protections.

At this time, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our distinguished whip.

Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time remains for both sides.

At this time, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

In my concluding remarks, I would simply say that this act is commonsense reform aimed at providing greater certainty for interstate natural gas pipeline projects at a time when we see great revitalization in the production of natural gas. We have an opportunity to export some natural gas, we have the opportunity to help lower electricity rates, and I would urge all the Members to support H.R. 1900.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to say to the gentlelady from California that all of us certainly have great sympathy and were shocked by the events in San Bruno. I know it was a horrific incident and that many people lost their lives and homes and that it certainly disrupted the community.

Mr. Chairman, in response to that accident, Congress reenacted a reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act in late 2011. That bill included provisions on requiring the verification of maximum allowable operating pressures for pipelines constructed before 1970 and an expansion of the current Pipeline Integrity Management Program to cover more miles of pipe and, therefore, require more inspections. The accident investigation in San Bruno determined that the natural gas pipeline

that failed had been installed in the mid-1950s, using incorrect materials and welding, incorrect even given the standards of the day. Fortunately, that legislation passed unanimously in the House and in the Senate.

I would also note that, under the Natural Gas Act, FERC, when reviewing a proposed natural gas pipeline, must find that it meets the public convenience and necessity, in other words, the public interest. The Commission does have mechanisms in place to listen to the concerns of landowners, of communities, and they balance that with the need for energy infrastructure that meets national needs for a broad number of citizens. The FERC process, under section VII of the Natural Gas Act, is open, fair, and it invites participation by local communities and landowners already, and that has been in place for 70 years.

So I think all of us understand where the gentlelady from California is coming from. We do genuinely believe that the existing process certainly considers local communities and the input from those communities. Because of that, I would respectfully ask that we not agree to the amendment of the gentlelady of California.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Since I am the only one who will be speaking, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from Texas does have a reputation of being very innovative in her legislative strategy. While I would agree with her--and many of us would agree--that I am frustrated with the budget process and that many of us don't think the budget process works, she is, with this amendment, trying to bring to a conclusion sequestration.

I would simply say that we do not believe it is appropriate to, nor do we think that we are equipped to, debate the sequestration issue, which is a budget issue. Today, we are simply trying to expedite the building of additional natural gas pipelines to streamline the permitting process in order to help people throughout America have lower electricity rates and, perhaps, to increase our exports. So I would oppose her amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Gibbs and Mr. Rahall and Mr. Bishop for bringing this important legislation to the floor, and I also want to thank their staff.

This innovative legislation is vitally important to the economic well-being of our country because we have to have a strong inland waterway system in order to be competitive in the global marketplace.

Setting a priority for inland waterway projects, reforming the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' project delivery methods, and freeing up money in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund for these projects is vitally important, and that is what this legislation does.

I also want to thank the committee for including some of the WAVE 4 language used to improve the inland waterway system. That bill was introduced in the House and in the Senate. Some of the provisions are in here.

I also want to thank the committee for including language supporting our Nation's small ports and harbors; also for their commitment to repair the aging levees that shield many of our local communities from devastating floods, hurricanes, and other disasters. I also want to thank the committee for making sure that our freedom to fish is protected.

Mr. Speaker, one of the basic premises of our U.S. Constitution and form of government is equal protection under the law and equal protection and equal application of the law. Now the Obama administration has developed a reputation of unequal application of Federal laws. For example, Jon Stewart, the talk show host, recently interviewed Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and he asked her a question that many Americans have been asking, and that was: Why has the Obama administration given waivers and extra time to companies and labor unions so that they do not have to meet the deadlines required by ObamaCare, but he is unwilling to give that waiver and the same additional time to individuals?

Now, we know that under the law, individuals are required to buy insurance; and if they do not buy insurance, then they will have to pay a penalty or a fine. That was a question that many people have been asking. That's been part of the debate, by the way, of this continuing resolution, as well as the debt ceiling issue. Why cannot individuals be given additional time and consideration to meet this law, but you do give time to companies and labor unions? That is an unequal application of Federal law. By the way, Secretary Sebelius could not answer that question.

Now, just as the administration favors companies and unions over individuals in that context of ObamaCare, the administration is also giving special favors to the wind industry in the energy sector. For example, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act have been enforced for many years by Federal prosecutors in America. To give you an example, we all are very much aware of the tremendous oil spill in the gulf a few years ago. Well, British Petroleum Company was fined $100 million for killing migratory birds.

We have a number of former Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Congress, and I was talking to one of them just yesterday. He was telling me about a case that he had down in North Carolina in which an individual shot and killed an eagle, and that gentleman was prosecuted by the Federal Government, fined $100,000, and had to forfeit some profits from his timber company. And so the Federal Government has been quite forceful in the protection of eagles and also migratory birds.

Now, wind projects, and I'm quoting now from an article that appeared in the paper just a couple days ago, wind projects routinely violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but not one wind farm in America has ever faced a single prosecution or paid one penny in fines. As I said, BP alone paid a $100 million fine for killing migratory birds.

I could also quote a utility company in Wyoming in which some eagles were electrocuted, and that company paid a $200,000 or $300,000 fine.

According to studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other groups, wind turbines overall kill over 573,000 birds each year, including over 83,000 birds of prey. Now, that's according to a study this March in the Wildlife Society Bulletin.

So the Federal Government, under this administration, is not prosecuting violations of these Federal laws because of their favor of the wind industry. But worse than that, now the Department of the Interior has notified through a publication on September 27 in the Federal Register that they are going to pass a regulation so that wind companies cannot be prosecuted for killing eagles and migratory birds in most circumstances. So they haven't been prosecuting under existing laws, and now we are going to pass a regulation to give them additional protections.

As this article says, there are two scandals here. First, wind turbines are killing legally protected eagles in the name of slowing climate change, but whatever reductions in carbon dioxide emissions that may be occurring--and I'm not going to go through all the facts and figures here in this article--but whatever emissions may be occurring is equivalent, according to this article, to a baby's burp in a hurricane.

And then, second, the wind energy industry is lobbying to extend a production tax credit, the 2.2 cent-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy, that has caused windmills to be built in America. Without that subsidy, it is doubtful any would be built; but last year, the subsidy was extended for an additional year at a cost to taxpayers of $12 billion. Now another 1-year extension is being lobbied for by the industry. That would cost an additional $6.1 billion. So it is bad enough that this wind industry wants to continue killing eagles with impunity, but now they are asking the taxpayers to give them the money so that they can do it.

Now, as chairman of the Energy Committee, unlike President Obama, I genuinely do believe and understand that we need an all-of-the-above policy on energy. We need renewable energy, we need windmills, we need solar panels, we need nuclear, we need natural gas, and we need coal. But to exempt one industry from Federal laws because they are favored by this administration is not what America is all about.

Now the President goes all over the country talking about an all-of- the-above energy policy; but how many people in America know that because of his administration and regulations at EPA, America is the only country in the world where you cannot build a new coal-powered plant. And yet even in Europe, which is known as a green energy sector, they have on the drawing board 60 gigatons of new coal-fired plants, and we continue to export more coal today than we ever have to other countries that recognize they have to have coal to be competitive in the global marketplace because coal does produce low-cost electricity.

But, as I said, unlike the President, I genuinely believe we need everything; but I do not believe that any industry, certainly not the wind industry or any other industry, should be exempt from Federal laws that protect endangered species--migratory birds and eagles--that are the symbol of this great country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 37 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, October 14, 2013, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw to the attention of the House of Representatives the 150th anniversary of the Rankin Ranch located at the end of California's southern Sierras in northeastern Kern County. This quiet ``old west'' community in the little mountain valley of Walker Basin is home to the historic 31,000 acre Rankin Cattle and Guest Ranch now under the operation of the 4th, 5th and 6th generation of the Rankin family.

The Quarter Circle U Rankin Ranch was founded by Walker Rankin in 1863. Walker married Lavinia Estelle Lightner in 1868, laying the foundation for the family that has made cattle their family passion for generations. The ranch has evolved with the nation, serving as a stage stop for the overland mail route in the 1870s.

The years have brought times of triumph and times of tragedy, including a car accident that claimed the life of Walker and Lavinia's son and daughter in law in 1929. Similarly in 1954, after the sudden death of third generation, Leroy Rankin, at age of forty-two, his wife Helen ultimately decided to continue her husband's lifetime work and was thrust into the family business. But her new perspective would prove useful to the business, when in 1965, Helen decided to diversify by adding a guest ranch to her cattle operation.

Today, Bill and Glenda Rankin and their children, and their grandchildren all live on the ranch, and run both the cattle and guest ranch businesses.

I am proud to recognize the Rankin Ranch and the six generations of Rankins that have worked to ensure the survival of one of California's oldest and largest family owned ranches. Like thousands of other guests at Rankin Ranch, I have fond memories of the beauty of the countryside and great respect for the hard work and dedication of the Rankin family. Since 1863 they have been superb stewards of this magnificent land and gracious hosts for a public anxious to experience life on a ranch.

Congratulations on the 150th Anniversary of Rankin Ranch--a true American treasure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank those Members who have decided to revisit this very important issue.

I might remind everyone that the Delta Queen received an exemption from the Safety of Life at Sea Law. And we recognized that that original law applied to oceangoing vessels and, since 1968, Congress has always provided the exemption for the Delta Queen, except that it did not in the year 2008.

Since then, the Delta Queen has been sitting down in Chattanooga. The new owners are spending $10 million to put in new boilers. There's a sprinkler system and, as has already been indicated, the Coast Guard will make the final decision about the safety issues.

But this is an issue of jobs. And I might say that the unemployment rate in America over the last 4 years, in each of the last 4 years, has been higher than in any year in the last 62, except for 3 years.

So in communities like Paducah, Kentucky, that I happen to represent, the Delta Queen each year would land at Paducah. Every month it would come by, people would get out, and it was an economic boon to our area.

We genuinely believe that this is a balanced approach. It protects the safety issues that people are concerned about because of the $10 million being spent to refurbish the Delta Queen, and it provides additional employment for people looking for good jobs.

So I would urge every Member to support H.R. 1961, a commonsense, balanced approach, to get this historic paddle boat back on the Ohio River and the Mississippi River.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of Marine Sergeant Dakota L. Meyer.

Sergeant Meyer was a scout sniper with the 3rd Marines and was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on September 8, 2009, in Afghanistan. While maintaining security at a patrol rally point, an element of Sergeant Meyer's team was moving on foot through a village. When they were ambushed, Sergeant Meyer and a fellow marine raced to provide additional support for the ambushed squad.

Despite concentrated enemy assaults, Meyer made two trips into the ambush area to evacuate two-dozen Afghan soldiers. He was then wounded by gunfire. After that, he made additional trips into the ambush area to recover additional wounded soldiers, and provided fire to help the remaining U.S. and Afghan soldiers fight their way out of the ambush. For his heroic efforts, Dakota L. Meyer was awarded the Medal of Honor on September 8, 2009.

When Douglas MacArthur gave his farewell speech to West Point, it was entitled, ``Duty, Honor, Country.'' I think those three words reflect the efforts of Dakota L. Meyer and his entire team.

Today, I pay tribute to Dakota L. Meyer of the First Congressional District of Kentucky.