Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tonight, in this House Chamber, President Obama will give his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress.

Article ll, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that the President, whoever it may be, shall, from time to time, give to Congress information on the State of the Union. George Washington, the first President, addressed the joint session of Congress, but Thomas Jefferson and each succeeding President up until 1913 presented a written statement of the State of the Union to the House and Senate. So from 1801 until 1913, Presidents submitted a written State of the Union, and on April 8, 1913, Woodrow Wilson, like George Washington, addressed a joint session of Congress, and that has been the manner of our State of the Union by every President since, with the exception of Herbert Hoover.

Today, I am asking for another little change in the State of the Union. I think that we should consider a requirement that the President, on a day that coincides with the State of the Union, also have the Federal Government make a formal declaration of national debt.

My purpose in calling for the declaration is twofold: First, while information about the debt can be found, it is spread throughout a vast array of budget submissions, trustee reports, and other documents that are nearly impossible to navigate or to understand when trying to determine the total national debt and unfunded liabilities our Nation must pay now and in the future. And then the second reason, of course, is to elevate the issue to remind the American public the significant dangers of large government debt.

As of today, our Nation's Federal debt exceeds our Nation's gross domestic product. What does that mean? Gross domestic product is used to determine the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced in America annually, and it includes all of the private and public consumption, all of the government outlays, all the investments and all the exports, less the imports.

Our debt is increasing so quickly that it really is difficult to give an exact figure of our national debt. Suffice it to say that it will, in the very near future, exceed $17 trillion. When I looked at the so- called ``clock'' on my way over here, it was approaching $16.6 trillion. Now, if you stacked $16 trillion one-dollar bills one on top of the other, it would extend more than 1 million miles, which would reach to the Moon and back twice.

Now, former Speaker Pelosi said a few days ago that we do not have a spending problem. Now, I do not believe that most Americans would agree with that statement. Families throughout America must live within their means or suffer the consequences, and our government must live within its means or suffer the consequences. Many people say there are no real consequences, but all of us have seen the loss of jobs, the violence, the lack of economic growth in countries like Greece and Spain and other parts of the European Union.

President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, and the Nation's total debt on that day was $10.6 trillion. Today, it is over $16.5 trillion. The President has drastically increased this country's debt in a mere 4-year span; in fact, it has increased by over 45 percent. However, it should be pointed out that he and he alone is not responsible for all this dramatic increase in debt. Every person that has served in the U.S. Congress in the recent past or today, House Members and Senate Members, are also responsible for the spending that we have approved. Also, those people who serve in the executive branch of government are also responsible.

Just to give you a few examples, 9 or 10 months ago, the Department of Energy built about 12 new buildings over here on The Mall, across from the Jefferson Memorial, for a solar exhibit. It stayed there for about 10 months, and then it was torn down. No one really knows how much the debt cost.

EPA, each year, gives grants to other countries, including China, to help them with their environmental problems at a time when we have to borrow money from China to meet our obligations. And then, as Mr. Jones mentioned earlier, in Afghanistan, we're spending $28 million a day.

So I think it would be beneficial to the American people to prepare an annual declaration of the national debt to be made available to the Congress and the public. This would show the American people how much we owed last year, how much we owe this year, and what the projected debt is for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 267) to improve hydropower, and for other purposes.

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. 267.

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

H.R. 267 is the result of the bipartisan effort of Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Congresswoman Diana DeGette, both members of the Energy and Commerce Committee. They've worked long and hard on this legislation. It has great promise for increased hydropower development across the Nation, and we're delighted to bring it to the floor today.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 3 minutes.

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

We have no additional speakers.

I just want to say, in conclusion, how much we enjoyed working with both sides of the aisle on this issue. I want to thank Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Diana DeGette.

The Nation will benefit from this legislation because, as has already been said, hydropower is a clean, efficient, abundant, and affordable source of energy. And I urge people to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 316) to reinstate and transfer certain hydroelectric licenses and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric projects.

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.

H.R. 316 would provide the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with limited authority to reinstate two terminated hydroelectric licenses and transfer them to a new owner, the Town of Canton, Connecticut. The licenses are associated with the Upper and Lower Collinsville dams on the Farmington River in Connecticut. Both projects are under 1 megawatt each. This is important legislation that will certainly benefit the people in that area.

I want to thank Mr. Lujan and others for working with us on this important piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank Mr. Lujan, members of the committee, and certainly Ms. Esty for her involvement in this legislation and would urge all the Members to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 235) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide grants to States to streamline State requirements and procedures for veterans with military emergency medical training to become civilian emergency medical technicians.

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.

I rise in strong support and urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 235, the Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Support Act of 2013.

At this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who wrote this important legislation.

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

I want to thank once again Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois and Mrs. Capps of California for this commonsense legislation. When you think about young men and women serving in the military and Iraq and Afghanistan and responding to a wide array of emergencies that they respond to and having visited the training programs that they have, we know that they are well trained. And yet some State licensing laws for EMTs vary. Many States do not recognize combat medics and other veterans' qualifications as applicable to the licensing requirement of the civilian health care system. Some States make exceptions for former military medics and allow them reciprocity and a chance to sit for the licensing exam without going through the usual training. But, as I said, many States do not.

This legislation simply helps streamline State requirements and make allowances for returning veterans to enter the EMT workforce without unnecessary duplication of their training. And we all know the great demand for emergency technicians in our society today.

This bill also provides for an annual report to Congress. It complies with CutGo because funding of the $1 million for the program is offset with funds from area health education centers of the Public Health Service Act.

So, I am pleased to support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 235. Once again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and all of those on the committee who brought this legislation to the floor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Robin J. Copeland, who passed away on October 30, 2011 at the young age of 46.

Robin had roots in West Texas and had a distinguished career in international diplomacy, non-proliferation, and scientific engagement. Her work with the United States Department of Energy, Department of State, the Civilian Research Development Foundation, and liaisons with U.S. Embassies worldwide was carried out under difficult and demanding conditions. Her responsibilities required skills in political science, technical science, and engineering and she was fluent in seven languages.

She was an expert in non-proliferation and contributed in significant ways to the reduction of nuclear weapons in Russia and Libya. In addition to her work on non-proliferation, she also implemented a program that trained Russian doctors with U.S. doctors in Africa to treat and care for those with HIV/AIDS.

Texas Tech University has established the Robin J. Copeland Scholarship to be awarded to undergraduates, graduate, or law students who enroll in the following academic programs of study: 1. Political Science or international law in a supporting area of science or engineering; 2. Science and engineering with auxiliary emphasis in political science or international law or; 3. Programs that demonstrate compelling evidence for application to science and international diplomacy.

Robin was a talented and unique young lady who served her nation well. She was a success in life, because she made a gift of her life.

Well, thank you, Chairman McKeon, and I certainly want to thank you and Mr. Smith and your staffs for the hard work to complete this 51st consecutive defense authorization bill. As you know, the Energy and Commerce Committee has an interest in a number of provisions included in the bill. One of the provisions is section 3113, which modifies section 4102 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act.

My understanding of the Armed Services Committee's intention with regard to section 3113 is that, one, you want to reinvigorate a dormant statutory council by updating it and transforming it; and, two, you want to clean up the U.S. Code by eliminating obsolete language referring to the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs.

Is that your understanding, as well?

It is also my understanding that it was not the intent in section 3113 to affect the Secretary of Energy's management, planning and oversight authority, or delegation authority, related to the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Is that your understanding, as well?

Well, Chairman McKeon, I want to thank you very much. The Energy and Commerce Committee was concerned about the elimination of portions of the underlying section, and it is my understanding that you will commit to working with the Energy and Commerce Committee next year to restore pertinent portions of section 4102 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act.

Well, thank you. It's a joy working with you, and, once again, congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, to recognize (Ret.) Rear Admiral James W. Lisanby, who passed away on November 14, 2012.

Rear Admiral Lisanby, a native of Caldwell County, Kentucky, served his country and community with great integrity and honor. He rose through the ranks of the United States Navy during his 37 years to become a rear admiral and a chief engineer. He was instrumental in the development of the modern era of shipbuilding at the Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

After spending many years of service abroad and at sea, Rear Admiral Lisanby became the Commander of Naval Ships Engineering Center, his first Flag officer assignment, where he was responsible for the design and engineering of all ships and weapons developed for the U.S. Navy. He finished his stellar Navy career as the Deputy Commander for Acquisition and Logistics in the U.S. Navy's Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC.

Following retirement for the Navy, Rear Admiral Lisanby started his own consulting firm, Naval Services International, Inc., and became the first American elected President of the International Professional Engineering and Naval Architects Society, IPEN. He also served on numerous boards, including those of the United Services Life Insurance Company and the Sioux Manufacturing Company of Devil's Lake, ND, and he also served as the Chairman of the Board of Technology Financing, Inc., part of the BMT Group of International Companies.

Not only was he successful in serving his country, and in business, but he had a very impressive academic record. A U.S. Naval Academy graduate, he earned a Professional Engineers Degree (PE) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an advanced Management Degree from the Harvard Business School (PMD).

Rear Admiral Lisanby and his wife of 61 years, Gladys, retired to Arlington, Virginia and Pascagoula, Mississippi until Hurricane Katrina destroyed their beachfront home. At that time, the Lisanby's returned to Kentucky, and Caldwell County.

After returning to Kentucky, the Lisanby's became very active in the community, particularly in their support of the arts. They became members of the Endowment Circle of the Princeton Art Guild, where its Lisanby Courtyard honors Lisanby's mother, a lifelong artist and arts supporter.

Rear Admiral Lisanby was also an active member of Ogden Memorial United Methodist Church in Princeton, a Rotarian and a Paul Harris Fellow.

In addition to his wife, he is survived by his brother, Charles, two daughters, Elizabeth Ann Lisanby and Dr. Sarah Hollingsworth Lisanby, and their families.

The people of Caldwell County, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and this great Nation were greatly served by Rear Admiral Lisanby, and he will be truly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Leon Page, who passed away last Monday, December 10, 2012.

Mr. Page was a community leader and philanthropist who helped organize Franklin Bank and Trust and served as chairman of the bank's board of directors for 45 years.

In his 90 years of life, Mr. Page helped open and lead what became the largest bank in Franklin, Kentucky, an area I have the privilege of representing in the First Congressional District of Kentucky.

Mr. Page was active in all facets of the community. He was instrumental in industrial development in Franklin and Simpson County and was active in various community organizations. Having served as President for both the Franklin-Simpson Chamber of Commerce and the Franklin Rotary Club, Mr. Page also helped organize the Caveland Girl Scout Council and was treasurer of the Quarterback Club.

Leon Page served on the Kentucky Bankers Association and various boards and councils at Western Kentucky University. He also established a scholarship fund at Western Kentucky University that awards a four- year scholarship to a Franklin-Simpson High School graduate who majors in business each year.

I join the family, friends, and entire Franklin, Kentucky community in mourning the passing of this great man. He demonstrated the best of the values found throughout the First Congressional District of Kentucky. He is someone who, despite his personal success, will best be remembered as inspiring and helping guide others to achieve success for themselves, and a man who graciously gave back to a community that had given him so much.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6582) to allow for innovations and alternative technologies that meet or exceed desired energy efficiency goals, and to make technical corrections to existing Federal energy efficiency laws to allow American manufacturers to remain competitive, 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.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 6582, the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act, and I want to thank Mr. Waxman and his staff for working with us on this legislation. Part of it has been passed in the Senate, and we've worked very closely with the Senate staff and Members as well.

This is a small but critical piece of energy legislation that I encourage my colleagues to support:

Section 2 deals with an outdated standard for walk-in coolers that is actually resulting in layoffs and loss of jobs in the State of Alabama;

Section 3 deals with a fix to water heater requirements that will reduce regulatory burdens on manufacturers by transitioning to a single definition for all covered water heaters;

Section 4 fixes a standard that cannot be met from the 2007 energy bill for ``service over the counter'' refrigerators;

Section 5 deals with small duct high velocity systems;

Sections 6 and 7 seek to improve Federal coordination to help develop and deploy industrial energy efficiency technologies;

Sections 8 and 9 aim to improve Federal energy efficiency, which will ultimately save taxpayers money;

Section 10 makes additional routine technical corrections to the 2007 energy bill.

This bill will reduce regulatory burdens and provide greater certainty for manufacturers, allowing them to stay in business, avoid layoffs, and will also ensure the continued benefits of energy savings and consumer savings because of increased energy efficiency.

H.R. 6582 carries the support of the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, as well as the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the National Association of Manufacturers.

This bill shows that we can work together in Congress in a bipartisan manner to tackle important energy issues. To that end, I once again want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Waxman and his staff, for working with us to help develop this legislation that we all can support.

I might add that many of us on this side of the aisle feel as though the 2007 energy bill has many provisions that we believe to be challenging for stimulating private growth and creating jobs. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will continue to work with us on these matters in the future.

As the 112th Congress comes to a close, the passage of this modest but important energy efficiency bill gives me hope that we can work together in the coming years to tackle the many energy challenges facing America. I encourage my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 6582.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, December 3, 2012.

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn HOB,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology in H.R. 6582, the American Energy

Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act. The suspension text

version of H.R. 6582, posted on November 30, 2012 contains

multiple provisions from H.R. 4850, the Enabling Energy

Saving Innovations Act, as amended and passed by the Senate

on September 22, 2012 under unanimous consent, which are

outside the original scope of H.R. 4850, as introduced and

passed by the House on June 26, 2012.

While the text of H.R. 6582 reflects an agreement reached

by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate

Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the text also

contains provisions that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction

of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

I recognize and appreciate the desire to bring this

legislation before the House of Representatives, and

accordingly, I will waive further consideration of this bill

in Committee, notwithstanding any provisions that fall within

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology. This waiver, of course, is conditional on our

mutual understanding that agreeing to waive consideration of

this bill should not be construed as waiving, reducing, or

affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology.

Additionally, the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology expressly reserves its authority to seek conferees

on any provision within its jurisdiction during any House-

Senate conference that may be convened on this, or any

similar legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any

request by the Committee for conferees on H.R. 6582, as well

as any similar or related legislation.

I ask that a copy of this letter be placed in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor.

Sincerely,

Ralph M. Hall,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), who wrote a portion of this bill and whose State is at risk of losing jobs because of some technicalities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is chairman of the Environment and Economy Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I might say that we're all looking forward to working with the gentleman from Vermont as he comes back to the Energy and Commerce Committee.

At this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland), who wrote a portion of this bill.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield for a period of 3 minutes to Dr. Roe of Tennessee, who is a member of the Education Committee.

I also want to urge everyone to support H.R. 6582, a small, modest, energy-efficiency bill that will save some jobs.

I certainly want to thank the Members of the Senate, the Senate staff, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and his committee staff, and certainly the Energy and Power staff here on the House side for being involved in these negotiations and working this out.

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

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

We all recognize that in this country we recently had a national election. We have a lot of new Members of the House of Representatives. We have new United States Senators. President Obama and Vice President Biden are back in their offices. We've had new officeholders elected in many State and local communities as well. And while we have a lot of change in the elected offices, we all know that a big part of government relates to what we would refer to as the executive branch. And that means various departments of government and agencies within those departments of government. And those people work very hard. They're committed to the American people. They're not elected. And many times we do not even know who they are.

Now today, I want to raise an issue that is vitally important to all of the American people because on or about December 10 the levels of water on the Mississippi River are going to be so shallow between St. Louis, Missouri, and Cairo, Illinois, and then, on top of that, because of rock pinnacles near Grand Tower and Thebes, Illinois, that river traffic may come to a halt on the Mississippi River. And that means there's going to be millions of tons of commodities that are not going to be able to be transported north and south on that river. Of course, that affects not only the recipients of those commodities and the shippers of those commodities but indirectly people who mine, make, manufacture, supply those commodities. And so this potentially can have a dramatic impact in a negative way on the economy of our country at a time when we are trying to stimulate the economy, create more jobs, and make sure that we do not throw ourselves back into a recession.

In early November, and even toward the end of October, over 15 United States Senators, around 65 Members of the House of Representatives, and 5 or 6 Governors of various States wrote letters to President Barack Obama; Major Phillip May, Regional Administrator for Region IV of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Mr. George ``Tony'' Robinson, Region VI, Federal Emergency Management Agency; the Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army for the Corps of Engineers; Mr. William Craig Fugate, Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Mr. Andrew Velasquez, Regional Administrator, Region V of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and Ms. Beth Freeman, Regional Administrator, Region VII of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in which we point out this impending problem.

Now I'm not the only one talking about this. Every Member of Congress along that corridor is receiving phone calls, letters, and emails. We have all sorts of groups out there very much worried about this problem needing to be solved. And it can be solved. But it appears that the Corps of Engineers has an annual operating plan. This annual operating plan determines how much water they're able to release from the Missouri River into the Mississippi River in the wintertime. And I understand that they have to have a plan. But most people in America know that when you have exceptional circumstances, you have some emergency, you have some unintended consequence, that you have to make alternative plans.

And so those Senators that I talked about, those Members of the House that I have talked about, the Governors that I have talked about, the 15 or 20 associations that I have talked about all have gone to the Corps of Engineers and asked them to change their annual plan and release some water from the upper Missouri to the Mississippi River so that we do not have to stop barge traffic on the Mississippi River. And so far, we've heard no response.

I know that there are groups that are opposed to this. There are some environmental groups that are opposed to this--and for valid reasons. And we're not asking this to be done permanently. But this is an emergency that will have dire consequences on the economy of this country, and we cannot stand for even a brief period of time to stop commerce on the Mississippi River.

Of course, there's another issue that I mentioned earlier, and that is that we have these rock pinnacles that are contributing to the problem of this shallow waterbed between Grand Tower and Thebes, Illinois. And the Corps has indicated that they're going to take some action to remove those pinnacles. And that's vitally necessary as well.

So I'm here today partly out of pure frustration. Although some people think that individual Members of Congress have a lot of power and authority--and sometimes we think that--but the truth of the matter is these decisions are being made by people at the Corps of Engineers, maybe the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and some of these other agencies. They have the legal authority to take action here. But so far, they're unwilling to do so.

I'm here today simply to raise this issue because I don't know what else to do. We've written letters. We've called. These associations and agencies of other governments, State and local, have written letters, have called. We've done everything we can do. We've asked the President to take action. We've asked the Corps of Engineers to take action. And we understand that it's not anyone's personal fault.

This is caused by a drought of unusual proportion. When you think about traffic--all traffic on the Mississippi River in that region between St. Louis and Cairo--coming to a halt, it's going to have a dramatic, negative impact on everyone in our country.

So I simply am here today to focus attention on the issue and to once again ask the President, the Assistant Secretary of Defense, and the Corps of Engineers to take some action to work with us to resolve this problem.

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

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, November 19, 2012.

Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy,

Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works,

Washington, DC.

Dear Assistant Secretary Darcy, It has come to our

attention that commerce along the Mississippi River may soon

be in jeopardy. According to industry groups, barge traffic

could be severely impaired or altogether grind to a halt

along the middle Mississippi River between St. Louis, MO and

Cairo, IL. This has the potential to occur as soon as

December 10th of this year.

The problem has arisen because of the drought and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers' current plan to halt releases of

water from the Upper Missouri River reservoirs on

approximately November 22nd. We understand that the Army

Corps typically reduces and eventually shuts off water flows

during this time of the year in accordance with its Annual

Operating Plan (AOP) for the Missouri River, but doing so now

could result in such low water levels on the Mississippi

River that normal barge transportation would be impossible.

On November 13, flows from the Missouri river made up 61.1

percent of the Mississippi River, according to the U.S.

Geological Service gage.

Ensuring that the Mississippi River is open to traffic is

vital to the manufacturing and agriculture communities, and

ultimately American jobs. The river system is the global

gateway for American products and commodities, and its

continued traffic flow is of the utmost importance.

We ask that the Corps speed up the process of removal of

rock pinnacles at Grand Tower, IL and Thebes, IL. Removal of

rock in this area is essential for normal barge traffic to

continue within low water levels. We also ask that water

flows be maintained from the Missouri River until the rock

removal is finished.

An industry review of the statute, regulations and

legislative and operating history demonstrates that Congress

specifically intended the Missouri River reservoir system be

operated to benefit downstream areas on the Mississippi River

as well as the Missouri. Corps management of the Missouri

reservoirs has deviated from the AOP during exceptional

circumstances. The navigation community recognizes the

legitimate needs of the other users of Missouri River waters,

and believes this problem can be solved without significant

impact on other water claimants.

We trust that you recognize the importance of this issue to

U.S. jobs and industries, and are hopeful that you will work

with all parties involved in these impacted areas. Thank you

for your consideration of our request.

Respectfully,

Rep. Aaron Schock (IL-18); Rep. Ed Whitfield (KY-1), Rep.

Jeff Landry (LA-3); Rep. Spencer Bachus (AL-6); Rep.

Erik Paulsen (MN-3); Rep. Dave Loebsack (IA-2); Rep.

Elijah Cummings (MD-7); Rep. Wm Lacy Clay (MO-1); Rep.

Gene Green (TX-29); Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-9); Rep. Adam

Kinzinger (IL-11); Rep. Sam Graves (MO-6); Rep. Peter

Roskam (IL-6); Rep. Glenn `GT' Thompson (PA-5); Rep.

Gregg Harper (MS-3); Rep. Bobby Schilling (IL-17); Rep.

Leonard Boswell (IA-3); Rep. Cedric Richmond (LA-2);

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2); Rep. Emanuel Cleaver,

IL (MO-5); Rep. Terri A. Sewell (AL-7); Rep. Jerry

Costello (IL-12); Rep. Mo Brooks (AL-5); Rep. John

Shimkus (IL-19); Rep. Tim Murphy (PA-18); Rep. Timothy

V. Johnson (IL-15); Rep. Steve Scalise (LA-1); Rep. Tim

Griffin (AR-2); Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL-7); Rep. Bruce

Braley (IA-1); Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL-3); Rep. Jim

Cooper (TN-5); Rep. Mark Critz (PA-12); Rep. Bobby L.

Rush (IL-1); Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-7); Rep. Robert J.

Dold (IL-10); Rep. Rodney Alexander (LA-5); Rep. Rick

Crawford (AR-1); Rep. Steven M. Palazzo (MS-4); Rep.

Billy Long (MO-7); Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9); Rep.

Jo Ann Emerson (MO-8); Rep. Randy Hultgren (IL-14);

Rep. Tom Latham (IA-4); Rep. Alan Nunnelee (MS-1); Rep.

Todd Akin (MO-2); Rep. Mike Ross (AR-4); Rep. Charles

W. Boustany, Jr., MD (LA-7); Rep. Vicky Hartzler (MO-

4); Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-2); Rep. Steve Stivers (OH-

15); Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-7); Rep. Bill Cassidy,

MD (LA-6); Rep. Stephen Fincher (TN-8); Rep. Collin

Peterson (MN-7); Rep. Dan Burton (IN-5); Rep. John

Kline (MN-2); Rep. Don Manzullo (IL-16); Rep. Judy

Biggert (IL-13); Rep. Diane Black (TN-6); Rep. Jason

Altmire (PA-4); Rep. Russ Carnahan (MO-3).-

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 21 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, December 3, 2012, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Robin J. Copeland, who passed away on October 30, 2011 at the young age of 46.

Ms. Copeland served this great Nation with honor and dignity for many years. She had a very distinguished career in international diplomacy, nonproliferation, and scientific engagement.

She began government service working in Russia in 1991, where she became the U.S. Department of Energy's attach at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. At the time, this was our largest Embassy in the world. She later served in Moscow with the U.S. Agency for International Development. In this role, she became the first woman and first person under the age of 50 to hold the office of Chairman of the Interagency Council. As an energy specialist, she worked on several non- proliferation programs that resulted in effectively stemming the spread of weapons of mass destruction from the former Soviet Union.

She also was successful in thwarting proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and exporting of technologies and former Soviet scientists through her work as the Worldwide Director of Nonproliferation for the Civilian Research Development Foundation (CRDF) Global. And due to her expertise in non-proliferation, she took part in contractor efforts to

monitor Libya's nuclear programs following the return of Libyan WMD to the United States in 2003.

In addition to her work on non-proliferation issues, she used her expertise on Russia and developed and implemented the U.S. program that trains Russian doctors with our doctors in Africa involved in the treatment and care of those with HIV/AIDS.

Ms. Copeland was born in Florida and grew up in Connecticut, but she and her family have deep roots in West Texas where her parents and grandparents are Dimmitt, Texas natives. In honor of Ms. Copeland, Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas, has developed a scholarship for students interested in using scientific and technical skills to promote peace internationally. This is a very unique scholarship as it is the only one of its kind at any major university in America.

I congratulate Texas Tech University in developing this scholarship, and I think it is a great honor to a great American who served this country with such distinction. I send my thoughts to her family, and it is my distinct pleasure to honor Robin Copeland.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3409.

I rise to claim time in opposition.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we haven't declared war on wind or solar or anything else. We simply don't believe that when you have a $16 trillion Federal debt that the Federal Government should use taxpayers' money to serve as venture capital for risky ventures like Solyndra that received $538 million and now is bankrupt. If this technology is so good, let the free market develop it. It does not need taxpayer support.

Yet, on the other hand, this administration has adopted policies that you can't even build a new coal-powered plant in America because there's no technology available to meet the new emissions standards of the Obama EPA.

On this particular amendment, on page 7 of the amendment, it says that by the year 2035 that 50 percent of the electricity would have to be produced from renewables. The gentleman in his comments said 25 percent, but this amendment says 50.

Well, I'm just reading from page 7.

Anyway, this amendment simply creates a national renewable electricity standard. We've seen it before. It was in the Markey-Waxman cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress, which was rejected by the Congress.

This amendment does nothing more than determine for the American people where their electricity will come from and that they are going to be paying more for it.

So I urge people to vote against the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We have great respect for our friends on the other side of the aisle. I think we all recognize that we do have basic differences in our philosophy about the way energy is produced in America. It's quite clear that many people on the other side of the aisle are very much opposed to coal. Not only do they not want us to burn coal in America; they don't want us to export coal to other countries even though it would help our trade deficit and would preserve jobs in the coal industry.

This particular amendment on fugitive dust is really unnecessary because fugitive dust from the transport of coal is already regulated at the Federal and State level under the Clean Air Act, as well as State fugitive dust laws and regulations. EPA already is required to study the environmental and health impacts from particulate matter from all sources, including fugitive sources, and of all compositions, including coal dust. The most recent summary of that science was published by EPA in 2009 and supplemented in 2010. In fact, this week the Army Corps of Engineers also announced that it will conduct an environmental assessment of the proposed coal terminal in the sponsor's district.

So I would say that we already have adequate protection. There's no need for this amendment, although I'm sure it's offered with the very best of intentions.

So I would urge our Members to oppose this amendment and would yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am going to say that I'm a little bit shocked that people would be so critical of this bill and saying that this bill is not important.

All of us know that President Obama, when he was running for President, made the comment that if he was elected President, you could build a coal-power plant, but he would bankrupt the industry.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, coal is having problems today because natural gas prices are going down. Let's let the free market work, and coal is losing out because of these natural gas prices.

The truth of the matter is, if natural gas prices were higher than they had been in the history of America, under this administration, if they finalize the greenhouse gas regulation, you cannot build a new coal-powered plant in America. One of the things that this bill does is it simply says, no, you're not going to regulate the greenhouse gases with this regulation.

The second thing that it does is this administration has been more aggressive than any in recent history on regulating the coal industry. The second thing that we do is we simply require the Department of Commerce to lead an interagency committee that will complete analysis of key EPA rules and regulations and the impact that they have on jobs in America, on our ability to compete in the global marketplace, on the energy prices, on energy reliability, and on the benefits.

What is so radical about that? An interagency task force to simply examine the cost of this cumulation of the impact of the regulations on energy prices, impact on global competitiveness, impact on energy reliability. What is so radical about that?

Then, finally, the third thing that it does is we say we're going to establish minimum Federal requirements for the management of coal ash. Coal ash has been used in America for 50 years or more to build highways and to be used in concrete. All we're saying is we're going to set a minimum Federal standard, and we're going to let the States enforce it through enforceable permits. Then EPA can get into the action if they want to if the State fails to act.

I don't view this as anything radical. If you go to any coal mine today, and you tell people that work in those coal mines that this administration is not harming their ability to work, I think you would be facing a losing argument.

One of the things that upsets me most about all these regulations is that when Lisa Jackson comes to testify, she talks about all of the benefits from a health perspective. I would be the first to acknowledge our air today is cleaner than it has ever been and all of us can take pleasure in that and feel very proud about the effectiveness that the Clean Air Act has given us.

The important thing today is to recognize that there are diminishing returns in these additional regulations.

If you look at the cost to the coal miner and his family when they lose their health care, the EPA does not look at the impact that that will have, the costs that that will have to society; but they look at models, and they determine that maybe next year they're going to prevent 1 million people from having asthma, which is quite subjective.

This is a reasonable piece of legislation that simply tries to slow down EPA, particularly at a time when our economy is weak, when we're trying to create jobs, not lose jobs, and when we're trying to be and remain competitive in the global marketplace with countries like China that are stepping up the use of their coal when we're sitting here with a 225-year reserve of coal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask how much time we have remaining on our side?

Thank you.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), who's a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), who's the vice chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

We have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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

America would not be where it is today economically without the use of coal. I think all of us recognize that.

I would like to just read a couple of statements from recent court decisions about EPA.

The court called EPA's rationale magical thinking and its stunning power for an agency to arrogate to itself. It says, EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in excess of its statutory authority.

The President says different things at different times. When he was a candidate last time, he said that he would bankrupt the coal industry. When he's a candidate today, he says he supports the coal industry. But his administration, through the EPA, shows clearly that they oppose coal.

The proposed greenhouse gas regulations, if finalized, would prohibit the building of a coal-power plant in America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I would say to the gentleman that we can accept all of the scientific evidence.

When the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, came to the committee, she was asked the question: What will happen if other countries don't do the same thing that we're doing? In other words, what's going to happen if other countries don't regulate greenhouse gases? She said the benefits for Americans will be very small, if anything, if that happens. EPA even conceded in its own analysis of its automobile regulations that it estimates it will reduce the Earth's future temperature by one one-hundredth of a degree in 90 years.

So let's just do a balancing act here. We have a regulation proposed which, when finalized, would prohibit the building of any coal-powered plant in America, and the administrator of EPA says that the regulation would be ineffective unless other countries joined in.

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

I've already stated my reasons to oppose the amendment, and I would urge everyone to vote in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment very simply because we know that the Clean Air Act--under the greenhouse gas regulations as proposed by EPA, it will be impossible to build a new coal-powered plant in America. Because of that, we're going to lose a lot of jobs in this country.

At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

First, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Stearns, for the great effort they did over the last year-and-a-half of bringing the facts of these loan programs to the Congress and to the American people. I'm also personally glad that we have the opportunity to talk about this issue today because transparency is vitally important, I believe, for the American people.

This legislation applies to two loan guarantee programs at the Department of Energy, section 1703 loans and section 1705 loans. The 1703 program was adopted in 2005. Most of us in here voted for it. President Bush was in the White House at that time, but no loan guarantees were issued under President Bush under that program. The second program was 1705, which was part of President Obama's stimulus package.

Now, I believe that the President made a mistake, and maybe it was deliberate, maybe it wasn't, but I don't think that he ever had a sound policy

to help stimulate the economy in America. I believe that his stimulus program, particularly this loan guarantee program, he was using that as an opportunity to push an agenda to move America into green energy before America was able to go to green energy.

And he loaned $538 million to Solyndra, a company of which Mr. George Kaiser, one of the President's major political donors, was a part owner. That company went bankrupt. And not only did it go bankrupt, but the bankruptcy's terms were such that the venture capitalist, the private capitalist, Mr. Kaiser, and others would get their money back before the taxpayers did. And so this 1705 program and the 1703 program, in my view, put the government in as a venture capitalist in risky projects.

We know they're risky because Solyndra's already bankrupt, Abound Solar is bankrupt, Beacon Power is bankrupt, Nevada Geothermal has no positive cash flow, First Wind has withdrawn its IPO and is having significant financial problems.

So the President was not really developing a sound policy to stimulate the economy. He was providing money to risky ventures to push America into green energy before the technology was really available.

So this legislation simply puts an end to the program.

Now, I would be the first to say that there's still $34 billion left. We have 50 companies that have presented applications to the Department of Energy. They've spent a lot of money. So to just cut it off right now would be basically unfair. I would like to end it right now. But it would be unfair.

But let me just finish with this note.

The Department of Energy's own Web site said that because of these loan guarantee programs, 1,175 new jobs were created in America in green energy. Guess what? Each job cost $12.8 million. Now, if you're a hardworking taxpayer out there, I don't think you want your taxpayer dollars going to risky ventures in which private capitalists get their money back before anyone else does and for every job created it costs $12.8 million.

Let's pass this legislation.