Floor Statements

I might add that health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies helped write the President's health care bill. And 2 years ago, when the discussion was on the floor about this bill, our friends on the other side of the aisle never talked about tax increases in the bill. I assume they didn't talk about it because they didn't know about it because the Speaker at that time said we'll find out what's in the bill after we pass the bill.

Well, when the Supreme Court upheld this law, they did so because of the taxing power of the Congress, and they said certain things were taxes. That brought up the issue of taxes. So when we went through this bill, we found 21 new taxes on the American people that will amount to about $800 billion over 10 years. Taxes on high-cost health plans, taxes on health insurance providers, taxes on brand-name drugs, taxes on medical devices, taxes on flexible spending accounts, and others. I could go on and on and on.

I would urge the repeal of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4850) to allow for innovations and alternative technologies that meet or exceed desired energy efficiency goals.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Enabling Energy Saving Innovations Act, H.R. 4850, which was introduced by Representative Aderholt of Alabama. This bill fixes a problem with section 312 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 relating to newly manufactured walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. The legislation resolves a problem by providing the Secretary of Energy authority to waive certain component specifications of section 312, so long as the manufacturer demonstrates that that product meets or exceeds DOE energy-efficiency standards.

I would urge all Members to support this commonsense piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), who is the author of this legislation.

We have no further speakers.

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the gentlelady from Florida and the ranking member for working with us on this legislation. I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5625) to reinstate and transfer certain hydroelectric licenses and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric projects.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 5625, which was introduced by Representative Murphy of Connecticut. This legislation 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 one megawatt each, and I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers, so at this time I would just thank the gentleman from Connecticut for bringing this legislation to our attention. I appreciate his patience. It took us a little while to get it to the floor, but I do urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be allowed to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4850 and H.R. 5625.

I rise today to support Mr. McKinley's motion to instruct conferees to the highway transportation bill to stop the EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous material.

Since the formation of the EPA, the EPA has looked periodically at coal ash. Most recently, they did it in 1993 and 2000 under the Clinton administration and came to the conclusion that coal ash does not warrant being regulated as a hazardous waste.

The only difference between today and then is that this administration is determined to put the coal business out of business, yet America gets about 48 percent of its electricity from coal. We cannot expect to meet the demands of this Nation's electricity needs over the next 20 years without coal.

If the EPA is successful in treating coal ash as a hazardous waste, which is quite radical, we know that independent analyses have shown that the costs associated with road and bridge building in America will increase by more than $100 billion over a 20-year period. And in America today, to stimulate our economy, to get our goods to market, we need to improve the infrastructure of this country.

At this time in our Nation's history, with the economic problems that we have, to try to increase the cost for construction to meet the vital needs of this country is really unconscionable, particularly when there's been no causal relationship found between coal ash and health problems.

I rise today to support the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act for a number of reasons. First of all, it would encourage more production of energy in the United States. Two, it would lower energy costs. Three, it would create additional jobs for the American people. And, four, just as important, it would keep America more competitive in the global marketplace.

We live in a global economy, and our ability to have cheap, affordable, and abundant energy is absolutely necessary if we are going to compete with countries around the world. So that's what this legislation is designed to do.

All of us have a responsibility to the environment, but we genuinely believe after hearing after hearing after hearing after hearing, people who create jobs come in and talk about the additional costs they're incurring because of this overly aggressive EPA, headed up by Administrator Lisa Jackson.

I would also say that one portion of this bill is a very commonsense approach. While it would not immediately lower gasoline prices, it does ask the President to establish an interagency task force to examine the impact on jobs, prices, and competitiveness of three regulations that the EPA has initiated. They haven't finalized it, they haven't decided they are going to finalize it, but they have started the first steps. And so we ask this Agency to look at what is the impact on fuel prices with these regulations if they are adopted and to report back to Congress and to not finalize any of these rules until at least 6 months after they report back to Congress. It seems to me a commonsense approach. We have a responsibility to the American people to have some idea about the impact of these regulations on the economy.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who is one of the primary sponsors of the Keystone pipeline legislation, and the route of the pipeline will be going partially through his home State of Nebraska.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

At this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a real advocate for the Keystone pipeline.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask who has the right to close?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for introducing this motion to instruct as I think it is for the benefit of the American people. Yet, having said this in many hearings on this subject, I really am puzzled as to how people can be opposed to the Keystone pipeline.

Many people have come up today who have been opposed to it, and they've talked about the necessity for jobs. The Keystone pipeline will create many jobs. As a matter of fact, we know that oil from the oil sands in Canada is already coming to America. There are over 1,000 American companies today supplying goods and services to Canadian oil sands and pipeline companies.

Just to give you an example, with regard to Caterpillar, which makes the 797--the world's largest truck--the engines are made in Indiana; the cab is fabricated and installed in Illinois; the frame component is cast in Louisiana; and the Michelin tires are made in South Carolina. That's just one. I could go through here and list a multitude of companies from which jobs are being created because of the oil sands, and only more will be created if we can build this new pipeline.

People say, Oh, you're going to export all this oil. Well, I genuinely believe that is a red herring. The Department of Energy, itself, did an analysis of this and said, if any oil were exported coming out of Canada, it would be a very minute amount. Yes, we do export some petroleum products now, but no one can honestly say--and no one has ever heard--that we intend to export the majority part of this oil, not even close to it. So I think that is a red herring.

I might also say that there was a moratorium on the Transatlantic pipeline in Canada from exporting oil. We found out that, when that happened, oil production in America went down because companies decided, well, the prices are down, and we're not going to be able to export any. Then President Clinton lifted that moratorium. So I think the gentleman from Massachusetts, in making this argument of, ``Oh, we've got to prevent export'' is a red herring.

There are a lot of pipelines already in America. On the average, they were studied for 18 months before they were approved. This pipeline has been studied for 40 months. I might also say that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has put together 57 additional safety measures for this pipeline that are not on other pipelines. This would be the safest pipeline built in America.

So we have the ability here, if the President would simply approve it, of building a pipeline that will bring 830,000 more barrels of oil a day to America. I still believe in supply and demand. If supply goes up, prices go down, and I think that we all recognize that. Yet President Obama received a final environmental impact statement from the State Department.

That environmental impact statement said, between the option of building this pipeline and not building this pipeline, the preference would be to build the pipeline.

That's why we all were so shocked. It's because, after that, we thought the President would approve this pipeline. But what did he say?

I don't want to make a decision until after the Presidential election.

Now, I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but I'm assuming he was concerned about the environmental groups, and that's fine. Yet to deprive the American people of approximately 20,000 new jobs directly in building the pipeline, additional jobs like Caterpillar that would be selling more products to the Canadian companies where the oil sands are being produced--the oil is being produced in the oil sands--really makes no sense.

This is a safe pipeline. It's 1,700 miles long. Only 60 miles of this pipeline route was suggested to be changed, which was in Nebraska, and the Governor of Nebraska and the legislature in Nebraska agreed with the change.

They've basically signed off on this. So I am puzzled by why anybody would be opposed to it. More oil, more jobs, less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Yeah, we all would like to be less dependent on oil, but I tell you what, there are not enough electric cars in America to provide the necessary transportation that we need, despite the millions of dollars from President Obama's stimulus funds into the production of it.

The reality is we need oil. We have an opportunity to do it here, to create jobs. I think the perfect place for this to be considered is in the transportation bill because we're talking about transporting oil for America to be less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

I would urge everyone to support the gentleman from Georgia and his motion, and I urge everyone to vote in favor of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our strong friendship and strategic alliance with the Republic of Turkey.

Turkey has continuously stood with the United States in our efforts to promote democracy and freedom throughout the world. As a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, Turkey has committed troops and necessary resources to efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan through the years, and serves as a crucial transit point for supplies and personnel going to these countries. Additionally, Turkey announced last year that it would lead the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, regional command in Kabul for a third year. Turkey is also at the beginning operational stages of a NATO radar facility in its southeast region as part of a missile defense system intended to protect NATO allies from ballistic missiles.

In addition to cooperation on NATO-led efforts, Turkey plays a critical role in promoting democracy throughout the region. Over the last year, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has traveled throughout Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries affected by uprisings to encourage secular constitutions and democratic reforms that are vital to U.S. interests. Turkey has also taken a leading role in addressing the ongoing situation in Syria, opening its borders to tens of thousands of Syrian refugees and encouraging Arab countries to lead a coordinated effort to find a peaceful resolution in Syria.

Turkey continues to increase efforts to support religious minorities in its own borders as well. Last August, Turkey issued a decree for the return of hundreds of properties, including cemeteries, hospitals, and schools, to non-Muslim communities. This announcement also provides compensation to the non-Muslim community foundations for properties currently registered to third parties. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton applauded Turkey's efforts to ``take serious steps to improve the climate for religious tolerance.''

Turkey remains a vital ally of the United States, and I am encouraged by the steps that Turkey has taken to improve its own commitment to democracy and to promote democracy throughout the Middle East. Turkey has

earned our respect, gratitude, and recognition for its efforts over the last 60 years. I look forward to continuing to work in support of our mutual interests.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Girl Scouts Troop 333 from Madisonville, Kentucky on their selection as one of the 2012 Make A Difference Day honorees.

Make A Difference Day is a celebration of the power of neighbors helping neighbors. Created by USA Weekend, this annual day of service mobilizes more than three million volunteers to create change in their community.

Nine Junior and Cadet Girl Scouts of Madisonville Housing Authority Troop 333 dedicated a second Make A Difference Day to seniors. In 2010 the troop did chores for their older neighbors in public housing. This time around, they decided to bring cheer to nursing home residents.

The girls decorated 450 greeting cards and wrote special messages for the seniors. They distributed the cards to residents in three assisted living homes and spent time visiting with each resident who received a card.

I am pleased that Troop 333 will be honored for their efforts tonight during the Points of Light 2012 Make A Difference Day Awards Luncheon at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center here in Washington. Please join with me in celebrating their outstanding service.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that, today, Father Gerald Baker, pastor of the St. Ann Catholic Church in Morganfield, Kentucky, gave our opening prayer.

He has served as pastor in Morganfield since 2003. Prior to that, Father Baker was also the pastor in my hometown of Hopkinsville, Kentucky, where he was a wonderful community leader.

Among other things, he started the St. Luke's Free Clinic in Hopkinsville. He received his Master of Divinity degree from Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, in 1983, and I might say that was the same year that our chaplain, Father Conroy, received his degree, also. He was ordained in 1983.

We are also delighted to have the eighth-grade class of the St. Ann Catholic Church with us this morning from Morganfield, and they will be taking a tour of the Capitol.

So, once again, I want to thank Father Baker for being with us today, for his leadership in our congressional district as well as in the State of Kentucky, and for the spiritual leadership he provides our citizens.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which is known as the Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act.

This is primarily about the Keystone pipeline. The Keystone pipeline has been a topic of discussion in America for the last 3 or 4 years. When it came to the attention of Congress that this pipeline, which promises to create tens of thousands of jobs and increase our access to safe and secure supplies of oil, was experiencing an unreasonable level of delay, Congress decided that we needed to step in.

We have, in Keystone pipeline, a company willing to invest $7 billion in private funds at no expense to the taxpayer. That would ultimately bring nearly a million barrels of oil per day from Canada to the U.S.-- additional oil per day.

Even the President's Jobs Council agrees. Their report specifically suggested the pipeline is a win-win-win for job creation, modernizing the Nation's infrastructure, and helping ultimately to lower gasoline prices in America. I would also like to point out that five major labor unions support the building of the Keystone pipeline.

A few years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in San Francisco giving a speech at the Commonwealth Club. In response to a question about Keystone pipeline, whether or not they would issue the permit to build it, Secretary of State Clinton said: We are inclined to do so.

This project has now been studied for over 40 months by seven or eight agencies of the Federal Government. And normally, to build an oil pipeline in America, it takes on the average of 24 months. When the Department of State issued their final environmental impact statement back in August 2011, they concluded that there were not any significant environmental issues. And they also said that when they look at the option of either, one, building a pipeline, or, two, not building a pipeline, that the preferable option was to build the pipeline. And of course the rationale for that is that if you don't build the pipeline and you bring oil in from other countries, you either have to do it by truck or by rail, which certainly emits a lot into the atmosphere.

But despite all of these positive reasons to build this pipeline, President Obama made a blatantly political decision when he said: I don't want to decide until after the Presidential election. And that's when Congress got involved and said we'd like a decision by February of 2012. And the President said: Well, I don't have enough time to study it, so I'm not going to allow it--even though it has been studied for 40 months. This is a 1,700-mile pipeline. The only issue left relates to about 60 miles in the State of Nebraska, and the Governor of Nebraska supports building this pipeline.

So this is a win-win-win situation for the American people, and I would urge my fellow Members to support this legislation to require FERC to make a decision on this pipeline.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we're here today because it's time to decide. President Obama and his administration have made a decision not to decide, even though his own Secretary of State, in their final economic environmental impact statement, made the decision that if you looked at two options--one, build the pipeline, or two, not build the pipeline-- the preferable route was to build the pipeline; 1 million more barrels of oil a day coming to America, ultimately. We're facing ever- increasing gasoline prices.

There's only 60 miles at issue at all in this pipeline out of 1,700. Five major labor unions support this pipeline. There's not one dime of Federal dollars in this pipeline, unlike the millions and billions that this administration have given to wind power and solar power and battery companies--many of which are in bankruptcy, just like Solyndra, which received $538 million from the taxpayers of America. This is a private company willing to put in $7 billion to bring 100,000 more barrels of oil a day, willing to provide 20,000 additional jobs to construct this pipeline.

So I think the decision here is very easy for the American people, and that's what Mr. Terry's legislation does. Since the President won't make a decision, Mr. Terry directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to make the decision. We have all of the data necessary. It's the right decision to make.

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

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

I do so reluctantly because we all have such great respect for Ms. Eshoo of California. She is a hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and provides great leadership.

But we oppose this amendment for a couple of simple reasons. Number one, this study by the Department of Transportation is going to be made anyway. We're not stopping that at all.

Number two, Keystone will transport a grade of crude oil that has been in our Nation's pipelines for decades. There's nothing really new about this substance. Venezuelan oil has about the same density. Certain Saudi Arabian oils have basically the same density.

Studies by the Canadian Government and private sector engineers in this country have demonstrated that heavy oils and diluted bitumen are not more dangerous or corrosive than regular grades of oil. We have not found any evidence to the contrary of those studies.

The reason that we're opposing this amendment is because this amendment would say you cannot begin this pipeline until this study is completed, and our position is we want this study to go forward. We've waited over 40 months to get the approval to build this pipeline. The American people need this pipeline. America needs this additional oil.

If the study comes back and comes up with significant, or any, safety issues, I can assure you that Congress is ready to act to address those. But there's no indication that there will be a problem.

So for that reason, we feel quite confident that this pipeline should be built. We want the study to go forward, but we want the permit to be issued to build it now, as the Department of State recognized in their final environmental statement back in August of 2011.

I would urge the defeat of the Eshoo amendment.

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

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

I yield myself 3 minutes.

First of all, I would like to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is a very hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and provides great leadership, that we reluctantly oppose his amendment.

His amendment is very simple, and it is very direct. It simply says the permit will not be issued until the permit applicant certifies and provides adequate documentation that at least 75 percent of the iron and steel used in the construction of the pipeline is produced in North America, which is a goal that many of us have.

I would like to point out a couple of facts here:

Number one, this is a private company that's putting up $7 billion of its own money;

Number two, in order to keep costs down, it has already acquired all of the steel and iron that it is going to use in this pipeline.

Now, some people will say, well, why in the world would it spend over $2 billion buying this material when they didn't have a permit? Well, they filed this permit 40 months ago, and all of the information coming out from the Secretary of State, the Department of State in their final environmental impact statement would indicate that the pipeline was going to be approved. So they bought this material many months ago to try to keep costs down.

And I will tell you, from the information that we have, 74 percent of the pipe was milled here in North America. In fact, it's milled in four different locations. Not all of them are in North America. The steel comes from seven different sources. Some of it from America and some of it not from America. But the reality is that, if we adopted this amendment, the permit would not be issued because the applicant cannot certify that 75 percent comes from America because it bought this material a long time ago. And, I might add, there's not one dime of taxpayer money in this project.

So our feeling is that, the practical aspect is that, if you would basically stop the building of this pipeline, we would lose all those jobs, we would lose all the additional oil that we would be getting, and we believe that there would be more negatives from it than there would be positives.

And one other comment that I would make is that the American Iron and Steel Institute, which represents many of the companies that Mr. Doyle is concerned about, is supporting our legislation. We have the letter that they support this legislation, and they support building the pipeline.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Five of the major labor unions in America support this legislation because they recognize the additional jobs that will be available to them in the construction of the pipeline. So for that reason, reluctantly, I oppose Mr. Doyle's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I might reiterate once again, this is a private company spending $7 billion of their own money. Before any of this ever became an issue, they acquired this material. They spent over $2 billion acquiring this material. Everybody is talking about jobs. One of the reasons they're offering this amendment is because of jobs. Well, there's nothing we can do about the material that's already been acquired. It's already purchased. So all we would do if we pass this amendment is we would make sure that the permit for this pipeline would not be issued. This material, all this $2 billion worth of steel, would be moved to Canada. They would build the pipeline to the west coast and move all of the oil to China, and they would get the construction jobs. So we would end up with no jobs.

I know the gentleman's intentions are the very best, and we all are concerned about the issue, but there are no taxpayer dollars involved in this. It is a private company. They have already acquired this material. This never became an issue until, I suppose, about a month ago, and the material was even acquired at that point.

So I would respectfully request that Members oppose this amendment. Let's build this pipeline and let's help America be less dependent on foreign oil, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans to speak on the recent death of Rauf Denktas, former leader of the Turkish Cypriots.

Mr. Denktas spent a great deal of his life advocating for a resolution to the separation between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Throughout his lifetime, Mr. Denktas witnessed the independence and divide of Cyprus, and went on to lead bilateral negotiations for a resolution to the Cyprus problem. For the Turkish and Greek people of Cyprus that have faced decades of turbulence, it is essential that a peaceful, unifying solution be found to this matter.

I send my sincere condolences to Mr. Denktas' family, friends, and the Turkish Cypriot community, and I am hopeful that the international community will move forward toward a lasting settlement in Cyprus that will be agreeable for both the Greek and Turkish communities, reflective of the longtime efforts of Rauf Denktas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the resolution and to claim time in opposition to the resolution.

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

I have read H. Res. 306. Certainly, there is nothing in the language of this resolution that very many people would oppose. It basically says that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of State, in all official contacts with Turkish leaders and other Turkish officials, should emphasize that Turkey should end all forms of religious discrimination. It then goes on from there.

Now, this resolution, in a way, reminds me of asking one, Do you still beat your children? Because whatever one answers, one is going to be condemned. So the mere fact that the resolution is being introduced would leave an objective observer with the opinion that religious freedom is being systematically denied in Turkey.

Let's just look at a few of the facts. On September 13, 2011, during a briefing on the release of the U.S. Department of State's International Religious Freedom report, Secretary Clinton praised Turkey's recent steps in enhancing religious freedom. We've also seen Turkey take serious steps in improving the climate for religious tolerance. The Turkish Government issued a decree in August that invited non-Muslims to reclaim churches and synagogues that were confiscated 75 years ago.

This was the language of Secretary Clinton: I applaud Prime Minister Erdogan's very important commitment to doing so.

In its 13th annual Report on International Religious Freedom, the U.S. Department of State also underscored Turkey's recent efforts. During the reporting period, the government took steps to improve religious freedom. Notably, the government permitted religious services to be held annually at historic Christian sites that had been turned into State museums after decades of disuse.

These positive statements have shown that Turkey has good intentions in pursuing religious freedom; and I might say that, last year, the Turkish Prime Minister issued a circular that emphasized the rights of all Turkish people, Muslim and non-Muslim, to enjoy their religious cultures and identities. Prime Minister Erdogan has urged all government institutions to act in accordance with this message.

So I think it's quite clear that, while this resolution has no binding legal effect and while it has no authority over Turkey whatsoever, we can see that Turkey is taking specific steps to ensure religious freedom in its country and that it's doing so without any prodding from the U.S.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I might say that Turkey certainly has been a valuable ally of the United States for many years. As we all know, it is the only Muslim nation in NATO. It has been a vital partner to the United States in the war on terror in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. And just recently, Turkey agreed to host a NATO radar defense system directed toward Iran. Turkey also is becoming an increasingly important commercial partner.

But I wanted to also point out, about 3 years ago, without any input from the U.S. Congress, the Secretary of State, or anyone else in the Federal Government, the director of religious affairs in Turkey on his own initiation had one of his religious scholars of the Muslim faith spend a semester at Wesley Theological Seminary here in Washington, D.C. During that semester, there was a dialogue between members of the Christian faith and members of the Muslim faith. And during that time, there was not any finger-pointing. There was no accusing the other side of being mean-spirited or anything else, but it was simply an exchange of ideas. That was at the initiative of the directorate of religious affairs in Turkey.

I might also point out that in October, the archbishop of the Armenian Orthodox Church re-consecrated St. Giragos, an Armenian church near Lake Van in Turkey. That church has recently been renovated.

I would also say that on November 11, 2010, Turkish authorities returned a former orphanage on Princess Island to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate following a decision by the European Court on Human Rights. On this occasion, the attorney representing the Patriarchate declared, ``This marks a first in Europe. Turkey became the first country to implement a decision of the ECHR by returning the property. This should be an example for other countries.''

So I think it's very clear that Turkey is moving in the right direction. They do not need to be condemned, in my view. They are a vital ally of the U.S.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I may make one other comment about Turkey. We all know that with the Arab Spring and the movement toward more free governments in the Middle East, that Prime Minister Erdogan has been one of the real leaders. He has spoken up against Syria. He has spoken up against Egypt. He has spoken against Tunisia and other countries and has been a real leader in trying to bring about a measure of freedom in that area.

I might also say that the time period that has been discussed earlier, about the early 1900s, of course during World War I when a lot of these things took place, the Ottoman Empire was fighting for its existence at that time. There were a lot of atrocities that took place on both sides.

But as I said, this resolution, there is certainly not anything in this resolution for anyone to oppose; but I think we should recognize that Turkey is making great strides, that they are returning properties, that they are taking a step, as has been pointed out by Secretary of State Clinton and by the religious watch organizations and others.

Mr. Berman had requested that I yield some time, and I would be happy to yield time.

I would be happy to yield.

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

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

I might also say that in order to ensure the future viability of the Orthodox Church, the appointment of non-Turkish citizen metropolitans to the Patriarchate's Holy Synod have been explicitly permitted in Turkey since 2004. Furthermore, in 2010, Turkey offered citizenship to metropolitans of foreign nationality who chose to apply. Additionally, issues regarding the residence permits of foreign clergy have been resolved.

I might also point out that I had mentioned earlier that the directorate of religious affairs in Turkey had made available one of the religious scholars in Turkey to conduct a seminar at Wesley Theological Seminary. I would also mention to the body that the South Korean Methodist Church has been evangelizing in parts of Turkey, and they have a church in Antakya,

which is one of the early Christian church sites that is located in Turkey, one of many, and they have been practicing their religion in Antakya.

And so I would say that I don't want people to leave here with the impression that Turkey is deliberately out there trying to deny religious freedom, because that simply is not the case. Now, maybe they have a way to go; but as I've said, there is certainly nothing in this resolution that refers to anything about a genocide. This is simply talking about religious freedom. And I wanted to simply point out the steps that Turkey has been taking and continues to take.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

In conclusion, I would just say and reiterate once again that, in the 13th Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, the U.S. Department of State also underscored Turkey's recent efforts during the reporting period, the government took steps, important steps, to improve religious freedom. These positive statements have replaced the status of no change in the situation regarding the religious freedom in Turkey.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

American farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses, like many other sectors of our economy, have faced an onslaught of EPA regulations. Now, we all support the environment, but our economy is struggling today, and every regulation adds additional cost.

The Congressional Research Service recently reported that agriculture has been facing new Clean Air Act greenhouse gas standards; engine emission standards; national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulates; Clean Water Act permitting and other requirements; Superfund reporting requirements; and regulations for disclosure, permitting, and other regulatory requirements relating to the use of pesticides. And until recently, the dairy industry faced ambiguity about whether milk and milk containers would be subject to the EPA oil spill prevention regulations.

We have 2.2 million farms in America employing 1.8 million people and providing 5 percent of this Nation's exports. We need to do everything possible to make it easy for them to do business and still protect the economy.

Today we're going to consider H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011. At a time when rural economies are struggling, this bill provides certainty that farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses will not be burdened with costly and unnecessary new dust regulations from Washington, D.C.

As one might expect, a reasonable and commonsense measure like H.R. 1633 has garnered 120 bipartisan cosponsors. I would like to particularly thank and commend the efforts of Representative Kristi Noem, as well as Representative Leonard Boswell, Representative Robert Hurt, and Representative Larry Kissell for their tireless efforts on behalf of rural Americans and this bill.

Our bill makes clear that the lead role in regulating so-called nuisance dust rests with State, local, and tribal governments. And the bill defines nuisance dust to include particulate matter generated primarily from natural sources, unpaved roads, earth moving, and other activities typically conducted in rural areas.

In some ways, it's ludicrous we're sitting here debating about the EPA regulating dust. And I might say that we have 197 organizations supporting this legislation.

Now, why do we need the bill? Well, EPA has been considering more costly, stringent PM10 standards. It is true that the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, recently announced that she would not propose new regulations, that she would retain the current PM10 standards. But the problem with that is, when they finalize a standard, it's uncertain whether EPA will finalize a standard that imposes greater costs to rural businesses. And we all know that many of the regulations and EPA environmental protections today are decided by the court system. So even though Lisa Jackson says she's not going to do anything, lawsuits can be filed requiring her to do certain things. So this legislation simply provides certainty.

I might also say, because the science does not support the regulation of coarse rural dust, EPA itself proposed, in 2006, to exempt this dust from their national ambient air quality standards. And the integrated science assessment for particulate matter at EPA said, for long-term effects of coarse particles, there is next to no evidence in support of long-term health effects.

I would urge all the Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who is a strong advocate for rural America and the creation of jobs in rural America.

Mr. Chairman, I might say that during the debate on this bill in committee, a lot was made of mining activities in rural America, and I would just point out that there are 17 Federal laws that mining operations must abide by. So we didn't feel like we needed to provide additional protection in that area.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), one of the prime sponsors of this legislation and a protector of rural America.

The gentleman from Massachusetts may view this as being about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell and fairy dust, but we have 197 organizations representing rural America that consider it a real problem.

At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. McKinley.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

At this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. Chairman, I have been told that we have no further speakers; so if the gentleman from California would like to close, then I would follow him.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly do appreciate this discussion on this important bill. I can tell you that rural America does consider this to be a real problem. The gentleman from California mentioned, correctly so, that we're operating under 1987 particulate matter standards. In 1997 and in 2006, the EPA went back to review that standard. They made a determination at that time that they would not take further action, but they were sued. Litigation ensued, and every 5 years the EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to look at this.

We know there are going to be further lawsuits. And so that's why we think it's absolutely mandatory that Congress assert itself and set out the policy that we do not want EPA regulating the dust on farms and ranches in America.

I might also add that in the letter we received from the board of supervisors of the county of Imperial in Arizona, they said the original rule that EPA had covered farms of 40 acres or more, which is 97 percent of all farmland in the Valley. EPA is now insisting that that be changed to all farms of 10 acres or more. And for what purpose? It seems clear that there's absolutely no justification for imposing requirements that would have a negative impact on the economy and the employment in Imperial County when the rules and controls would not change the ability of the county to meet the standards on the few high particulate matter days that are caused by exceptional events.

So, in closing, I would simply say we view this as a real problem. Congress needs to assert itself and set a definitive policy on this issue. I would urge all Members to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

While I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the gentleman from Illinois, I am going to oppose this amendment.

I would say, first of all, that this legislation does not change in any way the current EPA standard relating to particulate matter on coarse materials. His amendment would strike the provision in the bill addressing nuisance dust, keeping only that which prohibits a change to the existing PM10 standard for 1 year, which we agree with. But because it strikes section 3, which is the main part and the substantive part of this bill because it would eliminate our nuisance dust definition, I would respectfully oppose the amendment and urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a little off topic. We have a young man who served the Energy and Commerce Committee and me personally for many years and did an outstanding job. His name is Jeff Mortier. Tomorrow is his last day as an employee of the House of Representatives. I just want to take this opportunity to thank him for the great job that he did and to wish him the very best in his new endeavor.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

American farmers, ranchers and other rural businesses, like many other sectors of this economy, have faced an onslaught of EPA regulations--regulations that are costly and that make it more difficult to create jobs in America at a time when America needs jobs.

The Congressional Research Service recently reported that agriculture alone has been facing new Clean Air Act greenhouse gas standards; engine emission standards; National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulates; Clean Water Act permitting and other requirements; Superfund reporting requirements; and regulations for disclosure, permitting and other regulatory requirements related to the use of pesticides.

There are 2.2 million farms in America. There are 1.8 million people employed by those farms. Those farms provide 5 percent of the exports from America, and they provide $154 billion to our economy.

This legislation that we have on the floor today has the support of 120 Democrats and Republicans, and we have over 197 organizations representing rural America that support this legislation. The bill is very simple. It does not change any of the existing EPA regulations. It just says that the EPA cannot change its PM10 standard for coarse material earlier than 1 year after the enactment of this legislation, and it defines and exempts nuisance dust.

So why do we need this bill? People are saying that Lisa Jackson has said she is not going to regulate PM10.

That is true. She has said that. Yet we know that many of the environmental decisions in America today are made by people and groups and entities that file lawsuits against the EPA. Every time that has happened recently, the EPA has run and entered into a consent decree, and then it has paid the legal fees for the entity that has brought the lawsuit, which is exactly what we are afraid is going to happen in this instance. In this way, we can pass this legislation and make certain that local governments, State governments, and tribal governments will decide this issue of nuisance dust.

Now, some people have said, Oh, my God, this dust is so dangerous to one's health, and it includes all sorts of substances.

I might remind everyone that one of the authors of the EPA's most recent Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter testified before our committee. He said, as to the long-term effects of coarse particles, there is not one shred of evidence in support of long-term health effects.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation. It protects jobs in America, and it protects our exports. So I would urge everyone to vote against the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.