Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the thousands of mixed status families in Houston and Harris County, Texas who have needlessly been torn apart by our nation's broken immigration laws and call for this House to pass comprehensive immigration reform in 2014.

Nearly one year ago today, the United States Senate passed bipartisan immigration reform, S. 744, that would strengthen border protection and deter unauthorized crossings while providing a pathway to normalization and citizenship for those who have resided in our country for many years and met several requirements, including learn English, pay back taxes, and not commit any serious crimes.

This is not, as some opponents of reform have claimed, amnesty. This is earned normalization--earned through a long and documented commitment to becoming an American. The requirements and length of time necessary to obtain a green card in the Senate bill and its House companion, H.R. 15, are far more stringent than those set in the 1986 immigration reform that was signed into law by President Reagan.

Our district office in Houston handles hundreds of heart-wrenching immigration cases a year, including stories of high school valedictorians and military service veterans deported because they have no recourse and the system does not provide any discretion to consider their value to our society.

Comprehensive immigration reform, Mr. Speaker, is not only pro- family. It is also pro-jobs and pro-deficit reduction. The Congressional Budget Office found that enactment of CIR would reduce the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars and increase economic growth by 3.3 percent in 2023 and 5.4 percent in 2033. CIR would also add several years to the funds available in the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds.

These findings verify what immigration reform experts have said for years--that reform would help grow the economy and create jobs for all Americans, native born and naturalized.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with American families, American businesses, and our nation's cherished history as a land open to immigrants, and call for a floor vote on immigration reform this year.

I thank my colleague and fellow committee member for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. The amendment we offer today is the result of hard, bipartisan work.

The original text of H.R. 6 worked to fix a problem at the Department of Energy. The problem was delay. The Department of Energy is responsible for permitting exports to non-free trade agreement countries.

Since 2011, the Department has received approximately 35 permit applications to export liquefied natural gas. Since 2011, only one project has received final approval.

EIA estimates that by 2035, the United States will produce 5 trillion cubic feet more than we can consume of natural gas. But in order to export the gas, rather than flare it and harm the environment, projects need permits.

The process is not working well. Why has only one project received final approval after 3 years? Why did DOE, just this month, propose changing the process? It is because the process is not working.

The manager's amendment that I coauthored with my colleague from Colorado acknowledges that DOE's proposed changes are a step in the right direction.

I thank the gentleman.

Unfortunately, after 3 years of delay, we need to ensure DOE issues timely decisions. The manager's amendment places a 30-day timeframe on DOE after the completion of the environmental review process.

This amendment is an example of the cooperation and bipartisanship from our committee. And, again, I urge Members to adopt the manager's amendment.

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Chris Smith, told a Senate panel last week that he is ``confident that whatever the law requires, the department will be able to accomplish.''

DOE will issue public interest determinations 12-to-18 months after they receive the application.

I am confident that: after 3 years of delay, 12-to-18 months of environmental review, a 30 day public comment period; and an additional 30 days to review the application that DOE can issue a sound public interest determination.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the current amendment to H.R. 6.

The Holt-Quigley amendment requires the Secretary of Energy to consider how proposed natural gas exports will affect the domestic natural gas prices, jobs, and manufacturing when making a public interest determination.

I rise in opposition to the amendment because it codifies requirements that are already existing in the public interest determination. That is what the Department of Energy, under current law, is supposed to do, and we expect them to do their job.

When conducting a public interest determination, the Department of Energy considers economic, geopolitical, national security, and a variety of other issues. The public interest determination is a robust review of all the impacts associated with LNG exports. It would be redundant to require DOE to look at issues they are already considering.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I thank my colleague for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I represent an area that is a combination of both the customers of the natural gas boom that we have, but also the export opportunities in the States of Texas and Louisiana.

We are concerned about running up the price of natural gas because I want it to be used more for electricity production. I have a chemical industry that is in the eastern part of my district that I want to make sure we keep adding those jobs like we are doing so much.

I also know that we need to keep those folks drilling in the field, and in south Texas, we are flaring natural gas right now. In North Dakota, we are flaring natural gas. It is not good for the environment, but we need to have consumers for that, and so that is why this legislation is needed, and we will be able to have customers for that.

I know, yesterday, I used it in the bill on pipelines. In Texas, we love Blue Bell ice cream. I know the Chairman does, too. Their ads are saying, ``We eat all we can, and we sell the rest.''

Let's use all our natural gas we can in our country at a reasonable price, but what we can't use, let's not waste it. Let's sell it to someone else, and I thank the colleague for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding to me again.

That 2005 energy bill may have been called Bush-Cheney, but it came out of our Energy and Commerce Committee, and it had 77 Democratic votes when we passed that bill on the House floor.

Mr. DeFazio's amendment, with all due respect, requires an applicant to disclose any intention to use eminent domain on any construction necessary to support the LNG export project. I rise in opposition because it looks like an attempt to unnecessarily complicate LNG exports.

LNG facilities require pipelines. However, pipeline construction and operation is a whole separate issue. Yesterday in the House, we had a pipeline bill. Unfortunately, my colleague submitted LNG amendments to the pipeline bill yesterday. If H.R. 6 were a pipeline bill, then perhaps we could be honest about the debate. The fact of the matter is that we need more pipelines in our country. Right now in North Dakota and south Texas, we are flaring natural gas. But H.R. 6 is not a pipeline bill, and it is not the legislation to address the issue of eminent domain, which is predominantly under State law, and I am proud of our State law in Texas. I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the rule for both H.R. 6 and H.R. 3301, and I will address both of these bills. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 3301 and a recent cosponsor to H.R. 6 after we amended it out of our committee.

As for H.R. 3301, this legislation would create a North American energy market with our free trading partners Canada and Mexico.

If we want to create this market, we need to have statutory authority. It is true that the Presidential permitting process dates back through many administrations, but to really create this market, we need some certainty, and that is why it should be in statute. These past administrations were forced to use executive orders, but Congress has failed to act. Congress has the duty to regulate the commerce of the United States, and cross-border energy infrastructure projects fall well within that space. Unfortunately, cross-border decisions have now fallen victim to election cycles and political considerations. H.R. 3301 will resolve these issues and those proposed by the amendments debated here today.

Let me say that I wish we had an open rule. Some of the amendments considered by the Rules Committee I would have liked to have voted for, but let's not take that away from the quality of these two pieces of legislation.

H.R. 3301 provides for an environmental review of the cross-border segment of the pipeline. The entire length of the pipeline is reviewed for environmental impacts under existing law. Any time a pipeline crosses Federal lands, waters, endangered habitats, a National Environmental Policy Act review--also known as ``NEPA''--must be completed by the Federal Government. Otherwise, the environmental permit must come from the State environmental agency if it is within the State. There are more than 40,000 miles of pipeline in the U.S. that have been constructed with in-depth environmental reviews. This will continue to be the case. H.R. 3301 doesn't take anything away except the State Department only has to deal with their responsibility in its coming from Canada to the United States or from Mexico to the United States or vice versa. There will be environmental reviews by Federal agencies and State agencies, and this will continue to be the case.

Also, this bill doesn't deal with the Keystone XL. Pending applications for permits are grandfathered into the current process, and as a fail-safe, we have pushed the effective date of the legislation back to July 1 of 2016. This legislation isn't about Keystone no matter how badly opponents want to make it. It is about future projects and how to meet the energy needs of the 21st century.

Let me talk about H.R. 6. H.R. 6 would actually quantify how this should be done on exporting LNG, and most of those permits are in Louisiana and Texas. Most of the responsibility is with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, and they take 12 to 18 months to do the environmental reviews. The Department of Energy's only responsibility is if it is in the national interest to export LNG. We are going to keep that in the law, but we want to make sure they give a 30-day response because they have actually already had a possible 18 months to review these applications.

I thank the ranking member of the committee for yielding. Maybe in my 4 minutes, I can convince him.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud cosponsor and in support of H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act.

Passing H.R. 3301 will help create the North American energy market. It will help make us energy-independent for North America, between our two free trading partners, Mexico and Canada.

But I also need to correct the record. There is a lot of misinformation about this legislation, and I hope to make a few things clear.

Commerce decisions are the responsibility of Congress. Today we can have 1,000 tank-car trains with crude oil come from Canada without a permit, but to build a pipeline, it has been delayed for years because it couldn't get a Presidential permit. We can bring the same substance from Canada in train cars, but we can't put it on a safer mode of pipelines.

Congress has not acted on legislative cross-border infrastructure since 1850. I think it is time to change that.

The Presidential permit process that my colleague is defending so vigorously is an executive order process that could be changed depending on who is in the White House. My colleague may support the process now but may oppose the process later.

H.R. 3301 gives statutory certainty to build transmission lines, oil pipelines, or natural gas pipelines with our two free trade neighbors, Canada and Mexico. H.R. 3301 eliminates uncertainty that has crippled infrastructure development.

These pipelines are not paid for by tax money. They are paid for by investors.

H.R. 3301 does not eliminate or limit environmental reviews of cross- border infrastructure. In fact, the bill cements environmental reviews by putting it into law. The bill does not eliminate the public interests or deem applications approved. The bill guarantees the public interest must be met but in a timely fashion.

Finally, the bill does not apply to the current project applications, like Keystone XL. This bill doesn't go into effect if it is passed by the Senate until 2016. Keystone may or may not have their project approval or their plan approval by then, but they would have to get back in line with everyone else after this bill goes into effect. We have safeguarded against this by grandfathering current applications and delaying the effective date until mid-2016.

There are more than 60 cross-border projects that have been built over the last few decades. But today, there are more than 10 applications at the State Department awaiting action because political decisions have been bogged down in the process.

Cross-border infrastructure is important in the public interest. The State Department has stated: ``Additional pipeline capacity will advance the strategic interests of the United States, send positive economic signals, and provide construction jobs for workers in the

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. As ranking member on the Health Subcommittee, I, too, am hesitant to rise and oppose your amendment. What the amendment would do is it would ensure that the complete length of cross-border projects would be subject to full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The bill already guarantees that review at the national boundary based with the Department of Energy.

Existing Federal and State law guarantees an environmental review on the complete length of the project.

Current Federal laws that trigger NEPA reviews in addition to H.R. 3301 include the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination for Fish and Wildlife Service consultation, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Wilderness Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

The intent of this bill is not to eliminate any of the NEPA reviews within the continental United States. The problem we have right now is the Department of State is making a decision that really ought to be Federal agencies and even State governments who would need that.

If this amendment was adopted, it would require a State Department or a Presidential permit, and then all of the other agencies, and so it would make it impossible.

The argument for this bill, if you are opposed to Keystone, then you are allowing literally a thousand-car train of crude oil to come across the border now without any of these reviews. A pipeline is inherently safer. That is why we need to bring that crude oil by pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast, where our refining capacity is.

The amendment would actually expand what is under current law. It would make it even harder. The goal of the legislation is to have this North American energy independence market, and we don't need to throw up more roadblocks to keep companies from importing or exporting to Canada or importing or exporting to Mexico, where we already have free trade agreements.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding.

Ranking Member Waxman's amendment excludes any project with a pending permit application from the new approval requirements in the bill. The bill does not deal with Keystone XL. The bill shall not apply if an application for a permit for construction, connection, operation, or maintenance is pending. That is what the bill does, H.R. 3301.

The bill does not apply until after July 1, 2016. We are in 2014 now. Keystone XL has been at the State Department and White House for at least 5 years, and are they going to wait another 2 years? Now, if they want to wait until July 1, 2016, they would have to refile and start all over. But this bill has nothing to do with the Keystone permit. They could stand in line like anyone else after July 1, 2016, stand in line and get their permit. I would assume we would have a number of them.

But let me first take some time, and I appreciate my colleague, Ranking Member Waxman. I have been on the Energy and Commerce Committee since 1997, and most of the time we agree, but we do represent individual districts. But I want to say that I appreciate Mr. Waxman's service. We have worked together on a lot of legislation in the committee and even on the floor, but, obviously, we have a disagreement on energy. That is why I think the amendment is not needed, because the bill already prohibits it from applying to any current permit in the law.

Again, Mr. Waxman, I thank you for your service. I will miss you because I enjoy our discussions.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

I, too, understand where my colleague on the committee and Congressman Welch--let me leave with you one of our examples. You include also pipeline name changes in here. I understand your issue is reversing the flow. I would be glad to work with you, but I have a company that has been waiting years. They bought a pipeline coming from Canada into the United States. They have waited years just for the State Department to change their name.

What really bothered me--and I have contacted the State Department-- the State Department said: Oh, well, we are looking at it, but we know you are going to build a lateral from North Dakota into your U.S. part of the line, and we do evaluate that.

The State Department has no right to evaluate those pipelines. It is on our property in the United States. They have the cross-border. What we are seeing is expansion of State Department authority.

I agree that you have an issue and I would like to see if we could work with you on it, but it shouldn't take 3 years to change a name because another company bought it. And believe me, I think the State Department is trying to overreach by saying: By the way, we are going to evaluate what you are doing in the continental United States.

We already have Federal agencies--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a host of Federal agencies--that will evaluate that pipeline that is in our country. The State Department needs to take care of their business. That is what worries me about your amendment, so I ask for a ``no'' vote.

I would love to work with you, because I think if there is a reverse flow, I think somebody needs to look at it. I appreciate it. I still request a ``no'' vote.

I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. I have to admit that the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act is a bipartisan problem we have in this Chamber.

I rise as a cosponsor in support of H.R. 6.

H.R. 6 represents a bipartisan effort to legislate. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado, Congressman Gardner, for working with me. I wasn't an original cosponsor, but through our committee process we

have worked it out. We achieved bipartisan support in the committee because we were working together. I think that is what the American people want Congress to do.

It is important to recognize that there are more than 30 export permits to export LNG. These permits represent more than 35 billion cubic feet a day in LNG exports.

Currently, the Department of Energy has conditionally approved six of them, but only one project has received final approval through DOE and through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DOE has an important role in export to make sure that we don't increase our natural gas prices to where they are not affordable to our country. We are in an energy renaissance because of the success of natural gas, fracking, and directional drilling in our country, and we are producing more natural gas than we can use, whether it be for electricity production or for our chemical industry.

I represent a huge chemical complex in East Harris County. There is literally a renaissance in the expansion of those chemical industries. It is increasing jobs and our exports because a lot of those chemicals we are producing from our U.S. natural gas will be exported. So someone else will pay for those jobs in our district in East Harris County.

The Department of Energy has a role in this. The problem we have is that the Department of Energy has taken so long to approve these permits. The DOE really just needs to look if it is in our national interest. They include all these things under it. And that is correct.

Let me give you an example.

In Texas and North Dakota, we are flaring natural gas right now because we don't have customers in our country and we don't have a way to export it. It is bad for the environment. It is bad for the people who own those royalties because they are not getting paid for them. And it is just terrible to see something we can sell to someone else not be utilized.

So that is why I support this bill.

We wanted to find that sweet spot, so to speak, on where we can export what we are not using.

Those of you who are familiar with Texas, we hold in reverence our Blue Bell Ice Cream. If you are there, in their commercials they will say:

We eat all we can and sell the rest.

That is what I want to do with natural gas. I want to use all we can, but I want to sell all the rest we can't use so it will help our balance of trade, help some of our allies who need it, but also keep our workers working in both the oil patch and the gas patch.

My colleague states that one more approval would make us the largest LNG exporter in the world. But not all of these projects will be constructed. Only one has been approved all the way. Of the more than 30 applications, no more than a handful of these projects will be constructed and ultimately export LNG.

Further, it is important that we clarify the LNG permitting processing before we discuss H.R. 6.

There are two completely separate processes. First, a project must submit an application to export. If the project will send LNG to a country with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement, the application is automatically approved. In fact, the Port of Brownsville got their application approved in 30 days.

If the project sends LNG to a country without a free trade agreement--non-FTA--the DOE must issue a permit based on the public interest. For a project to actually export LNG in either case, the applicant must receive a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permit.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reviews the environmental impacts of the actual LNG facility. The FERC process takes 12 to 18 months and costs approximately $100 million.

The issue H.R. 6 seeks to deal with is the non-FTA permits through the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy currently has 25 permits awaiting decision. The Department of Energy held most of these permits for more than 3 years. Even the DOE recognizes this is a huge problem and proposed changing the approval process.

While I support the DOE changes, unfortunately, they fail to provide any certainty. H.R. 6 would place a timeline for the DOE to issue a decision. Again, remember, the DOE is going to have 12 to 18 months to know that permit because it is going through the Federal regulatory process already.

We need to make sure that the environmental review process is protected--and that is what FERC does--but we also need to make sure that the DOE makes those decisions timely so they can get those permits issued.

I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 6 and provide certainty to the market.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4631, the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education, and Support Act of 2014.

Autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, is a developmental disability that can lead to significant social, communication, and behavioral challenges.

We still do not know all the causes of autism, and we do not have a cure, but we do know that early intervention services can improve a child's development.

Recent data for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show more children than ever before are receiving an autism diagnosis. This is due, at least in part, to a broader definition of ASD and better diagnosis, but we cannot rule out the possibility of a true increase in the number of Americans with ASD.

Continued Federal support for autism activities at HHS will help us learn more about the causes of autism. It will help more children receive early diagnosis and intervention, as well as access to services that they need throughout their lives.

I want to acknowledge the sponsor of this legislation--Congressman Smith and Congressman Doyle; the sponsors of the Senate companion legislation, Senators Menendez and Enzi; and leaders on the Energy and Commerce Committee and on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--for making it possible to have a consensus bill before the House today.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, so we can send it to the Senate and on to the President for his signature, well in advance of the September 30 sunset provisions in current law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), my good friend and desk mate on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4080, the Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act. I am proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor on this important bill with my colleague from Texas, Dr. Burgess. I want to thank him for his leadership and commitment to this issue.

This bill reauthorizes the programs that provide grants to States for planning, implementing, and developing trauma care systems, and establishes pilot projects that design innovative models of emergency care systems.

Ideally, trauma and emergency care systems respond quickly and efficiently to ensure that the seriously injured individuals receive the care they need within that golden hour--the time period when medical intervention is most effective at saving lives.

However, unintentional injury remains the leading cause of death for Americans aged 44 years and younger, and access to trauma centers is inconsistent throughout the country. In fact, 45 million Americans lack access to a trauma care center within that golden hour, which is the first hour after the injury.

Emergency departments and trauma centers are overcrowded, the emergency care system is splintered, and surgical specialists are often unavailable to patients who need them. This legislation helps establish the systems that save lives and improve the functioning of our trauma care systems.

Again, I want to thank Representative Burgess for championing this effort with me. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Upton, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Waxman, Ranking Member Pallone, and the work of the committee's staff in advancing this bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee and bringing it to the floor today.

I support this bipartisan and I urge my colleagues to do the same, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, as a cosponsor of this bill and in working with my colleague Dr. Burgess for a number of years on trauma care, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3548, the Improving Trauma Care Act of 2014.

This legislation amends the definition of the word ``trauma'' for the purpose of trauma care grants authorized in title XII of the Public Health Service Act to include burns and other injuries resulting from electrical, chemical, or other exposures.

Strengthening our Nation's trauma care services is an important priority on which I hope to continue to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to address.

I want to thank Congressman Johnson for his sponsorship of this legislation, and I want to acknowledge the work of our committee-- Chairman Upton, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Waxman, Ranking Member Pallone--and of all the staff in bringing this bill to the floor today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I

urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3548.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1281, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2014.

Newborn screening is conducted for a number of genetic, metabolic, hormonal, and functional conditions that may not be apparent at birth. Approximately one in every 300 newborns has a condition that can be detected through screening. If diagnosed early, many of these disorders can be managed successfully.

H.R. 1281 reauthorizes the Department of Health and Human Services' Advisory Committee that recommends conditions to be included in the uniform screening panel; allows the Advisory Committee to begin the consideration of certain new conditions more quickly; and requires the Secretary of HHS to make determinations on the committee's recommendations in a shorter period of time.

The bill also extends support for State programs involving screening, counseling, education, and other services; demonstration programs to evaluate the effectiveness of services; and a clearinghouse of resources related to newborn screening.

This legislation puts a new emphasis on the timeliness of newborn screening in all of these activities, and it requires the GAO to report to Congress on this issue.

I want to thank the sponsors of this legislation, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard and Congressman Simpson; the

sponsors of the Senate companion legislation, Senators Hagan and Hatch; and the leaders on the Energy and Commerce Committee and on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, for their work on this bill.

I support H.R. 1281, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to my colleague from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard). We came in at the same time in 1993.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I urge support for the legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1098, the Traumatic Brain Injury Reauthorization Act of 2014.

Traumatic brain injury, or TBI, is an unexpected blow or a jolt to the head. These injuries affect people of all ages. A soldier in a blast injury, an elderly person who has fallen, or a young driver involved in a car crash can experience TBI.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate more than 2 million Americans experience a traumatic brain injury each year.

The vast majority of these individuals have an injury that can be treated at a hospital emergency room, but not

all Americans are as fortunate. Their injuries can have more devastating consequences and may result in death or lasting disability.

The TBI program at the Department of Health and Human Services was first established in 1996 and has been reauthorized twice, in 2001 and, again, in 2008.

The legislation before the House today, once again, reauthorizes the TBI program. It would extend TBI surveillance and research activities. It will also extend programs for TBI services and support administered across Health and Human Services.

I want to commend the sponsors of the legislation, Congressman Pascrell and Congressman Rooney, and I also want to acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Upton, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Waxman, and Ranking Member Pallone and the work of our committee staff in advancing this bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee and bringing it to the floor today.

I support this bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Pascrell, my good friend and colleague.

I urge support for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, rise today in support of our strategic ally, and the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel.

Over 65 years ago, the Nation of Israel was founded and the Jewish people returned to their long-promised homeland.

In the Middle East, it is vital that Israel and the United States continue to protect our shared values including our commitment to liberty, equality and religious freedom.

I am pleased to see that the House Armed Services Committee restored funding to joint U.S.-Israeli missile defenses.

Israel's security should be our first priority but this includes more than just weapons funding.

I support the talks and negotiations currently taking place with Iran.

As the Obama Administration continues talks with Iran, we, in Congress, have a responsibility to continue considering additional sanctions in case the talks fail.

The Iranians must understand that weapons grade uranium enrichment will not be tolerated and that the United States and Israel's security will be protected.

We will continue to monitor the negotiations closely and Congress will not hesitate to act should further sanctions become necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an issue I think should concern us all.

Americans increasingly rely on high-quality and reasonably priced telecommunications services for almost everything they do. Key to providing that service is a robust and competitive market in wireless communications which drives innovation, keeps costs low, and employs tens of thousands of Americans in good, stable jobs. Safeguarding this competition and these jobs is our responsibility.

With that in mind, I find the actions taken by Sprint over the past year since its acquisition by the Japanese firm SoftBank particularly troubling. In that time, Sprint laid off more than 2,700 call center workers. Almost 900 whom were in my home State of Texas.

Now, rumors exist that Sprint is preparing to buy T-Mobile. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer have expressed strong skepticism about this potential merger because they believe, as I do, that competition drives innovation and lower prices in the marketplace.

Coupled with Sprint's recent layoffs, Congress must take a careful and critical look at this deal, if and when it is announced, and stand up for what is best for American consumers and American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 186, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 185, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Crawford was allowed to speak out of order.)

Moment of Silence to Honor the Victims of the Devastating Storms

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observance of ``Yom HaShoah'' or the day commemorating the victims of the Holocaust.

The six million Jewish victims and the millions of others who perished during those dark and horrible days will never be forgotten.

The Jewish community and individuals across the world have committed themselves to the memories of those lost but also to the strength of those who survived.

As we mark another Holocaust Remembrance Day, and more time passes since those unspeakable atrocities were committed, we should never forget the precursors, context and attitudes that allowed such crimes to be committed.

Never again will peoples of free, liberal, open democracies stand idly by and watch an aggressor perpetrate crimes against humanity.

Today, we remember those that rose up and overcame and I stand with them.