Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from West Virginia, and I understand where we sit is where we stand. The gentleman has always been in the forefront of protecting his citizens in West Virginia and his workforce, including the mine workers of West Virginia, and I fully understand that, but nevertheless, I rise in opposition to this regressive legislation.

With very few days remaining before this Chamber adjourns, we are wasting what limited floor time remains debating a legislative proposal that this Chamber has already passed and the Senate has rejected.

Today, we will be voting for the 218th time--the 218th time this session--to weaken existing laws that protect our health and the environment that we depend upon.

Later this week, we will vote for the 53rd time to weaken the Affordable Care Act, which the American people are beginning to realize is actually working on their behalf.

None of these measures that have passed this session or will pass the House this week will become law. The President has already said if it passes, he will veto it, and my friend knows that. In fact, he reminded me. We know he is going to veto that if it were to pass, so you would think this is kind of a misguided and wasteful use of this institution.

We are planning on only 6 full legislative days before the election, and we are using one of those days on such a fruitless exercise. How about addressing the problems at our border or passing an extension of unemployment benefits or even passing a budget, which is one of our most basic responsibilities?

Instead of doing something useful and productive that might become law, we will again vote on a measure to prevent the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing their joint proposed rule clarifying the limits of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

This is what the Supreme Court instructed us to do. This rule is necessary. It is our responsibility. EPA and the Corps of Engineers need to clarify their authority because there is a lot of confusion on what falls under the protection of the Clean Water Act following two Supreme Court rulings.

Clarity will also help the States that use the Federal definition to operate their State water protection programs. Ninety percent of what the EPA does is in fact carried out by the States.

The proposed rule clarifies that most seasonal and rain-dependent streams are not affected. Wetlands near rivers and streams are not included. Other types of waters that may have more uncertain connections with downstream water will be evaluated through a case- specific analysis of whether the connection is or is not significant. EPA and the Corps have encouraged recommendations from the public for how best to determine whether a water body has a significant connection to downstream waters.

My colleagues, an estimated 59 percent of all stream miles in the lower 48 States fall into the category of intermittent or ephemeral-- they don't exist for part of the year--yet they receive 40 percent of all individual wastewater discharges. That is what the problem is. More than 117 million Americans get some of their drinking water from these very streams that don't flow year-round. Shouldn't their drinking water be safe from toxic elements?

If this measure were to be enacted, it would only ensure that the confusion continues and that these sources of drinking water remain a serious risk to the public's health. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for yielding me the time to add my voice to this bill which addresses an issue of national security and affirms our moral commitment to those who have risked their lives on our behalf.

I especially want to give a shout-out to Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Kinzinger for their diligence in getting this measure to the floor.

During our war in Afghanistan, our forces have been assisted ably and loyally by some Afghan nationals who have been essential to the mission and the lives of our military, especially Afghan interpreters. Now that we are leaving Afghanistan, these brave partners and their families face a mortal threat from the Taliban. They are relying on us to uphold our commitment to return their loyalty--and now that time has come--by allowing them to relocate to the United States.

This Special Immigrant Visa category recognizes the extraordinary debt we owe these partners. As Ms. Lofgren mentioned, for a number of years, that category suffered from administrative neglect, and the visa process was hardly functional. In the past year, though, important improvements have been made to the processing system and many more of our Afghan allies are being admitted to the United States.

Among them is Janis Shinwari, who served a translator alongside U.S. troops and saved the life of U.S. Army Captain Matt Zeller, with whom he now has a lifelong bond. Janis is now a member of my staff in my district office in Alexandria, Virginia. He continues to hear the desperate stories of his fellow translators who are in great peril and desperately seek to leave Afghanistan. Unfortunately, there are no visas left for the many deserving Afghans who are still in this administrative limbo. In fact, State estimates that we will hit the statutory cap on visas this summer with thousands of applications still outstanding.

The 1,000 visas authorized under this emergency measure are necessary. This bill is critical, but it does not represent the end of our responsibility on this issue.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to ensure that an appropriate number of visas are authorized for 2015. We have to stand by our friends and ensure that those who

have the courage to work with us in future conflicts know that they will not be abandoned.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the contributions of a respected and long-serving public servant, Angela Evans. This remarkable woman merits our recognition and gratitude for her dedication and commitment to public service, serving more than 35 years at the Congressional Research Service (CRS)--the Legislative Branch agency created by the U.S. Congress to serve as its primary source for policy research and analysis.

Angela Evans began her career at CRS in 1971 as an analyst working on welfare reform, health care finance, education and training, and budget reform. She quickly advanced in her management and policy roles, as she displayed a unique talent for advancing the mission of CRS, as well as strategically examining how the agency's role may evolve in the future. By 1982, she was serving as the Section Head for the Education and Public Welfare Division, where she secured the House and Senate Appropriations Committees as first-time clients for CRS. Additionally, in her role as Section Head she began the first formal student intern program, which was then adopted agency-wide.

In 1994, she was hand picked by the Librarian of Congress, James H. Billington, to be the Head of Congressional Relations and to assist with Deputy Librarian duties for the 1994 calendar year. Her leadership in these two roles led to the inauguration of the ``THOMAS'' website for the Library. Additionally she led the team that developed the ``Legislative Information System,'' or LIS, which was the first integrated confidential website for the Congress. For the next two years, as Acting Assistant Director for the Research at CRS, she achieved Senior Specialist status, the highest research position in CRS at the time, for her research undertaken on the social sciences. She also led efforts to evaluate all CRS research projects, resulting in the establishment of formal standards of quality and analytic rigor that are still in place today.

Beginning in 1996, and for the last 13 years of her time at CRS, she served as the Deputy Director of CRS. She was the first woman to hold this position--a feat worth recognizing on its own. Here she oversaw all facets of research, scholarship, development, and operations at CRS. She personally developed, managed, and supported organizational efforts to build and sustain relationships with Members of Congress, with policy and public administration scholars, university administrators, and with foundations. She believed in the mission of the agency and strived every day to exceed the goals and expectations set before her. Angela Evans led major organizational changes that not only enhanced the research capacity of CRS, but also improved the effectiveness of critical operations. Among her many achievements was developing the first agency-wide research framework used to identify public policy challenges, guide interdisciplinary research on these challenges, and assess the quality of the research. She also led the first agency-wide reorganization in 30 years, where a more streamlined structure was established to support interdisciplinary collaboration across research areas and professional disciplines to better serve Congress. These are just several examples of many contributions that Angela Evans made during her time at CRS that we are still seeing the direct impact of today. Her dedication, leadership, and commitment were recognized by CRS in 2009, when she was honored with the Distinguished Service Award.

Her public service did not end when she retired from the agency in 2009. She continues to serve the public now as a Clinical Professor in Public Policy Practice at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin. There, she has already received a variety of accolades from her students, fellow faculty, and alumni, including: the Best New Professor, 2010; the Most Valuable Class, 2011 and 2012; an alumni Texas Exes Teaching Award, 2012; and the Most Helpful Professor to Students each year 2010 through 2014. Angela Evans also continues to play essential roles in national organizations which focus on continuing the advancement of public service in this country. She is a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and has served on its Nominating Committee and the Business Model Task Force. She is also the current President of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) and serves on the Executive Committee of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA).

As 2014 marks the 100-year anniversary of CRS, it is only fitting that we recognize Angela Evans for her great contributions to the advancement of public service. I commend her for her lifetime commitment to this challenge and am pleased to recognize her achievements.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to associate myself with my good friend from Oregon. I agree completely with everything he said, and I am going to agree with our subsequent speaker, Mr. Miller, who played an essential role in getting the original Endangered Species Act passed. It has been wildly successful, Mr. Chairman, preventing species extinction.

More than 99 percent of listed species still exist today. Species recovered under the Endangered Species Act are also off the charts. The latest analysis found that 90 percent of listed species are recovering at the rate specified by their Federal recovery plan.

Successful species delistings are also increasing--delistings. Five years ago this month, the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized its rule to remove the bald eagle from the endangered species list. What a success story.

But for those who want to open up even more of our public lands to resource extraction, the law is a major inconvenience. So a working group, comprised entirely of Republican Members of the House of Representatives, was established by the House leadership to come up with legislative proposals to weaken the act. Today's bill is drawn directly from those recommendations.

It would deem whatever data that States, local governments, and Indian tribes submit to the Federal Government as the best available science.

It would undermine the ability of public citizens to contribute to the efficacy of the act, and it would compel the Fish and Wildlife Service to put online all data, regardless of merit, regardless of whether it contains proprietary or private information, and notwithstanding the fact that to do so will provide poachers and criminals with a road map to further endanger endangered species.

Mr. Chairman, the net effect of this bill before us today would be to force the Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, to squander its limited conservation resources on meritless requirements to become tied up in legal challenges and to diminish its ability to protect endangered species.

I guess if this body can outlaw Federal agencies from using scientific findings related to climate change in their decisionmaking process, then it is no stretch of the imagination for this body to define what constitutes best available scientific and commercial data.

This bill states that data submitted by a State, tribal, or county government is automatically deemed as the best available scientific and commercial data. The quality of the data is immaterial. What matters is who is sending it.

Let me say that again a different way. The quality of the information that State, tribal, and local governments submit is irrelevant under this bill. The bill says it shall be deemed the best available scientific and commercial data. The Fish and Wildlife Service would be required to include this data, even if it is not the best, even if it were not developed by scientists, even if it were developed for purely commercial purposes, and even if it is contrary to fact. The Service would be forced to include it and it will, thus, alter its decisions on listings, recovery plans, and other policies related to the conservation of endangered species.

It is also unclear how the Service would resolve a situation where States, tribal, or county governments submit conflicting data.

This is no hypothetical situation. During hearings on the Endangered Species Act, one of the witnesses, a Mr. Tom Jankovsky, Commissioner of Garfield County, Colorado, was very critical of State officials for the information they were providing the Bureau of Land Management on sage grouse habitat.

Commissioner Jankovsky found the State maps inaccurate, overstating the area of sage grouse habitat. The map he commissioned for Garfield County showed 70 percent less habitat for sage grouse.

Whose map should the Federal Government accept as the best available science, the Colorado State map or Garfield County's? This bill gives equal weight to both.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill, and no amendment can make it a good bill. It should be rejected.

Rather than addressing some of the compelling challenges that this Nation is confronting, we are wasting time on a bill that may pass the House but will go nowhere in the Senate and certainly will not become law. I urge its defeat.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is not necessary. It does not achieve the stated intent. Contrary to a lot of misinformation--and much of it deliberate, I am afraid--that has been circulated, farmers do not need a Corps of Engineers or even an EPA permit to dig a ditch, to till a field, to create a reservoir, or to irrigate their fields.

Congress clarified this issue more than 35 years ago when it passed the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act. Those amendments established a well-reasoned and practical approach that ensured far- reaching protections over the Nation's waters, but also ensured that practical day-to-day operations of farmers, of ranchers, of foresters, and a host of other industrial sectors could continue without the need for Clean Water Act regulation.

Section 404(f) of the 1977 law created a list of ``activity-based'' exemptions for normal farming, ranching, and forestry activities, but it also included safeguards to ensure that these exempted activities were not exploited by large-scale commercial interests.

I would also like to register my strong opposition to other attacks against the Clean Water Act that are already a part of this bill, and I refer specifically to sections 105 and 106.

Section 105 blocks the Corps of Engineers from updating regulations pertaining to the definitions of ``fill material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, and section 106 prevents the corps from finalizing its proposed regulation clarifying Federal jurisdiction.

Section 105 protects the work of some attorneys in the George W. Bush administration, who found a clever way to allow mining waste to be dumped into rivers and streams without a rigorous environmental review process.

They simply changed the definition of fill material to include ``rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, and overburden from mining or other excavation activities.''

What had once been a permit process intended to allow quick approval of construction projects like bridges and roads--where raising the bottom elevation of a water body or converting an area into dry land was unavoidable--it became a green light for mountaintop mining removal, where an entire mountaintop could be dumped into a stream valley; and since this clever change in definition occurred, more than 2,000 miles of streams have been buried under mining waste.

The environmental and health consequences have been shocking. People living near mountaintop-removed mines are 50 percent more likely to die of cancer and 42 percent more likely to be born with birth defects compared with other people in Appalachia.

Section 106 is another outrage that has been facilitated by interest groups with deliberately misleading statements.

The corps does need to clarify its authority because there is a lot of confusion as a result of two Supreme Court rulings, and the proposed rule clarifies that.

Most seasonal and rain-dependent streams are protected. Wetlands near rivers and streams are protected. Other types of waters will be evaluated through a case-specific analysis. That makes sense.

The corps has encouraged recommendations from the public for how best to determine whether a water

body has significant connection to downstream waters, but we have to bear in mind that 59 percent of all stream miles in the lower 48 States fall into the category of intermittent or ephemeral.

They only exist for part of the year, yet they receive 40 percent of all individual wastewater discharges. More than 117 million Americans get some of their drinking water from those streams that don't flow year round.

So including this rider to block the corps' rule will only ensure that the confusion continues and that these sources of drinking water remain at increased risk of pollution.

With rising temperatures, more severe droughts, and climate change, protection of our waters and wetlands are more important than ever. We need clarity, not more confusion, and this amendment generates more confusion, and so it should be opposed.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lebanese Taverna on their 35th Anniversary. Tanios and Marie Abi-Najm immigrated to the United States in 1976, along with their five young children: Dory, Dany, David, Gladys and Grace.

The family boarded a cargo ship, in the dead of the night, to escape the Civil War in Lebanon, bringing only what they could carry. Their final destination was Arlington, Virginia where other family members had already been living. After working in local restaurants for three years, the family saved enough to purchase a small restaurant in the Westover neighborhood of Arlington, near their home. Being practical, they kept the original sign, ``Athenian Taverna,'' changing just one word, thus ``Lebanese Taverna'' was born. Each family member had a role at the original location, whether it was greeting guests, serving food, cooking in the kitchen or finishing homework at the tables.

Lebanese Taverna today, 35 years later, is a multi-concept collaboration with six restaurants, four quick service cafes, a market, and full service catering division. Tanios and Marie are easing into retirement (although still involved in quality control) while the five siblings, each with their own specialty, operate the business. Today the Abi-Najm children still greet old friends and welcome new ones into the restaurants where they grew up and shared their lives, in keeping with their motto, ``good food enjoyed in good company.'' Lebanese Taverna has come to symbolize the realization of dreams and the rewards of dedication.

Mr. Speaker, once again, let me congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Abi-Najm on their 35 years of success. This family embodies the very best ideals of the American dream; hard work and a strong commitment to family and community. Congratulations on 35 years of success!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Karen L. Pallansch, Chief Executive Officer of Alexandria Renew Enterprises, on her election as President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA). Alexandria Renew is an independent government agency providing wastewater treatment services to the City of Alexandria and portions of Fairfax County, Virginia.

Beyond her wealth of environmental and engineering experience, I commend Ms. Pallansch for embracing a collaborative approach to watershed-based solutions that have garnered broad support among the public, business, elected officials, regulators and policymakers.

Ms. Pallansch is also a staunch and effective advocate for investing in our nation's aging and often deteriorating water infrastructure-- investments that convey both environmental and economic benefits and help communities across our great nation to grow and thrive. Ms. Pallansch believes--as I do--that great communities need and deserve great water infrastructure and great quality water.

As the Chief Executive Officer of the former Alexandria Sanitation Authority (ASA)--the precursor to Alexandria Renew--Karen presided over the completion of the Authority's

awarding-winning Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility that led the way in meeting the gold standard for removing nitrogen--one of the culprits behind the declining health of the Chesapeake Bay. Always seeking to be a good neighbor, ASA put much of the facility underground so as not to detract from the City's beauty and bring an Old Town look to the business of water protection.

When more stringent federal rules came along, Ms. Pallansch, working closely with her dedicated Board and staff, embarked on a massive State-of-the-Art Nitrogen Upgrade Program (SANUP) from which emerged the reimagining of what a wastewater treatment facility could be.

More than having cutting-edge technology, the facility she manages offers community-friendly features, including a regulation soccer field open to the public on top of an 18 million gallon treatment system. Alexandria Renew is moving down a bold new path to greater sustainability, helping to build greener, more sustainable communities, and creating in her agency ``a utility of the future.''

To reflect this broader enterprise, on Earth Day 2012, Ms. Pallansch announced that the Alexandria Sanitation Authority would be rebranded as Alexandria Renew Enterprises--the community's resource recovery center. The promise and synergy of this change are already being seen in a successful public-developer partnership that will create a vibrant new neighborhood from a dusty industrial area that was once an unregulated landfill for the City.

Ms. Pallansch has a long and distinguished career in the water reclamation field. She began as a staff engineer, rising to several senior positions before accepting position of CEO where she is now responsible for a $40 million operating budget and a $220 million capital improvement plan.

Mr. Speaker, once again, let me congratulate Karen Pallansch on her election as President of NACWA. As with Alexandria Renew Enterprises, I am sure she will lead the organization down a road marked by innovation, collaboration, progress and success. I wish her and NACWA the very best in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding organization in my district. The Alexandria Redevelopment & Housing Authority (ARHA) was created by the City of Alexandria under the authorization of Housing Authority Law, Chapter 1, Title 36 Code of Virginia, in 1939, for the express purpose of operating the Affordable Housing Program for low and moderate-income individuals in Alexandria. ARHA's goal is to provide citizens the ability to own a home or secure an affordable rental unit and improve the quality of life for all Alexandrians.

ARHA commenced operations in Alexandria, Virginia in 1941. They built their organization on a foundation that advocated the importance of providing safe, decent, sanitary, and affordable housing. They have grown into a stellar operation and are a leader in the development and management of mixed income housing in Alexandria. Home equity, housing security, and self-sufficiency are all important for Alexandrians to ensure a high quality of life. ARHA empowers its clients in these areas by providing an array of supportive services that give residents the opportunities needed to grow independently.

A healthy housing industry is important to the economic development of the City of Alexandria. It provides families with affordable housing opportunities and the chance to build equity while strengthening the tax base, creating jobs, and opening doors for further growth and development. Their continued partnerships between financial institutions and housing developers will continue to provide needed affordable housing opportunities for residents in Alexandria.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the Alexandria Redevelopment & Housing Authority for their outstanding work and contribution to our community.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. There are some facts that need to be put on the table that are inconsistent with what has been suggested by the gentleman from Arkansas. 18.6 percent of the people that were released by the Bush administration were ``confirmed'' recidivism cases, but it needs to be made clear that the Obama administration has released 95 people, and five of them have gone back to the battlefield.

Now, we don't want anyone to go back to the battlefield. There are 149 detainees still at Guantanamo. Fifteen are clearly the worst of the worst. Nobody is talking about transferring them, ever; but among them are a number of Muslim men who are innocent of any act against this country or our allies who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were kidnapped by bounty hunters.

Only 5 percent of the prisoners held at Guantanamo were actually apprehended by U.S. forces, and as many as 86 percent were delivered to coalition forces in exchange for a bounty of millions of dollars per head.

There are 78 people who have been cleared for release by the Department of Defense, and they are still under detention. That is a travesty. That is not right. That is inconsistent with everything we believe and stand for in terms of American jurisprudence.

I think the gentleman has made it sufficiently clear by now that many of us know that the political and legal expediency of this detention center at Guantanamo has not been worth the cost to America's reputation around the world, nor to the erosion of our legal and ethical standards here at home.

For far too long, over the course of this war, we have let our fear and anger triumph over our commitment to the rule of law, and every day that we continue to hold these men without charge, we diminish ourselves and cede our moral authority in the world.

So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is wrong. We need to exercise our judgment. Not all are the same. Not all should be there. Some should be tried in our courts, and this country has the ability to try and prosecute them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes to explain that my amendment would allow the U.S. military to transfer to their home countries the 77 detainees who have been cleared for release by the intelligence community and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to bring those not cleared for release to the United States to be charged, tried, and sentenced.

The Sergeant Bergdahl exchange has brought this issue again to center stage, but the fact is that, if we had dealt with these individuals in a responsible and legal way, we would not be in this situation discussing the merits of the decision to release five of them.

For 12 years now, Guantanamo has operated outside of a legal checks of the American judicial system, serving a physical reminder of the gap between the principles that define us as Americans and our willingness to abandon those principles in the name of national security.

With the final withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan this year, the continued indefinite detention at Guantanamo enters a new stage. We will no longer be at war, and the current Authorization for the Use of Military Force will expire.

So we have to ask ourselves: Do we have the legal authority to hold these enemy combatants indefinitely? Now is the time to either transfer or bring these men to trial--now--while we can still do so on our own terms, while we can give the Defense Department the legal authority it needs to make the right decisions about these prisoners.

It is costing us $2.7 million per detainee, per year, versus $34,000 at a maximum security prison in the United States. More than 300 individuals convicted of crimes related to international terrorism are currently incarcerated in 98 Federal prisons in the United States, with no escapes or attacks in attempts to free them.

The indictment and capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala for his role in the Benghazi attack is a great example of our ability to deal with high- profile terrorists swiftly and safely.

Mr. Khattala will not be brought to Guantanamo to become yet another symbol of U.S. hypocrisy. He will be brought to the United States to answer for his crimes in a Federal court and punished in accordance with the laws of this Nation. I have every confidence in our legal institutions to bring Mr. Khattala to justice.

General Michael Lehnert, who oversaw the opening of Gitmo has said that its continued operation ``has helped our enemies'' and makes ``a mockery of our values.''

It is time to put an end to this by supporting this amendment, and let me just use one more quote. In the words of the family members of the 9/11 victims, the current system is ``immoral, unlawful, expensive, counterproductive, unnecessary, and has failed to deliver justice for the 9/11 attacks.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Offered By: Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 41: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 22: Strike section 8108.

Offered By: Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 23: Strike section 8107.

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for giving me the opportunity to join my distinguished colleagues, but particularly you, my very good friend, Mr. Blumenauer. I just cannot thank you enough on behalf of this country for your leadership on this issue.

This is an important opportunity to discuss the President's proposed standard to limit carbon pollution because, just last week, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy announced proposed regulations that would reduce carbon pollution by 30 percent, below 2005 levels, basically below what they were a decade ago.

So that is going to help many States who have already made substantial progress, such as Oregon, toward that objective. That is a baseline that most scientists believe is absolutely necessary to prevent irreversible climate change.

The new standard relies heavily on the existing State and Federal Clean Air Act partnership that already exists which enables States to develop their own paths to reduce carbon emissions.

States are going to have the flexibility to cut emissions based on what makes the most sense for their unique situation, including options like reducing demand to encourage production of cleaner sources of electricity, cap-and-trade programs, and a menu of other energy efficiency ideas. States can work collectively with other States to develop multi-State carbon reduction plans. But without this major course correction, our present trajectory on climate change threatens the future of this planet.

As each day passes without action, the more we are destined to harm our environment, our country, and our loved ones. So while this plan may not be perfect, the current public comment period does provide an opportunity to improve on it. And given the inability of Congress to enact meaningful legislation on this or almost any of the other pressing issues our country confronts, I fully support the President's decision directing the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a standard for carbon emissions because it has become clear that this Congress will not do so.

It is no secret that the majority who control this Chamber are in climate change denial. Just 2 weeks ago, the House passed an amendment offered by Mr. McKinley of West Virginia to the National Defense Authorization bill that prevents the Pentagon from using funds to implement climate change assessments. This is a head-in-the-sand amendment, essentially a way to ensure that the realities of climate change are ignored by our national security policymakers.

It is an absurd notion that our military leaders should not react to the unequivocal fact that the planet is warming and that human activities are responsible. The McKinley amendment, and those who voted for it, remind me of the 16th century Catholic Church, Mr. Blumenauer, that condemned the work of a scientist by the name of Galileo who dared to claim that the Earth was not the center of the universe but that it, along with the planets, revolved around the Sun.

Now, those who voted for the amendment--and I hate to say the number, it was embarrassingly large--but those who voted for the amendment were telling our military to irresponsibly disregard the findings of the scientific community that our planet is warming. But our military leaders, fortunately, do get it. They do understand that the climate is changing, and they are doing their best with limited resources to be prepared to respond to that changing environment.

Climate change is a national security concern for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it is a catalyst for instability and conflict around the world. The U.S. Department of Defense's own Quadrennial Defense Review--this is the document that defines the Department's strategic objectives and potential military threats-- declared the threat of climate change is a serious national security vulnerability that could enable terrorist activity. The Quadrennial Defense Review specifically states:

The pressures caused by climate change will influence

resource competition while placing additional burdens on

economies, societies, and governance institutions around the

world.

The results will be a higher demand for American troops abroad, even as we struggle to deal with the devastating impacts caused by flooding and extreme weather events here at home.

Climate change is also a new form of stress on our military readiness. The Navy, for example, estimates that 128 of its installations just at the Norfolk, Virginia, Naval Shipyard alone would be affected by a 1-meter rise in sea level which we have to anticipate. It recently had to spend $240 million to double-deck four of its piers down at the Norfolk Naval Base so that they could harden utility lines and make the structures more resilient to sea level rise and more extreme and more frequent weather events.

Now, as an appropriator, I and my colleagues on the committee are dealing with the reality of climate change in Federal agency budgets. The effects of climate change are ratcheting up Federal expenditures. The 10-year average for wildland fire costs, the basis on which we attempt to budget for fighting wildland fires, is going up every year. We spent more than $800 million on wildfires just last year.

So, our military gets it, the vast majority of the American public gets it, and the executive branch gets it. It seems that almost everyone--almost everyone--gets the fact that climate change is happening; that is, everyone but a majority here in the House and a filibuster-sufficient minority in the Senate. Perhaps they are in denial because their political base either chooses to be ignorant or is profiting from inaction.

Perhaps it is a generational issue. I have seen a poll that a majority of all self-defined Republicans under the age of 34 think politicians who deny that climate change are either--and I am just quoting now, of course, these are not my words.

These are the words of the majority of Republicans under the age of 34 that they are either ``ignorant, out of touch, or crazy.'' Ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. Now, we wouldn't use those words, but the majority of Republicans under the age of 34 do use those words towards those who deny that we should do something about climate change.

We, along with the rest of the world, have a duty to protect our children and future generation from the effects of climate change. So I stand here with my colleagues to ensure that the Obama administration's effort to limit carbon pollution is not diminished or blocked by the Congress. For the sake of our national security, and the sake of a better future, the Obama administration's proposal to limit carbon emissions must be allowed to go forward.

I thank you very much, my friend, and I thank you for your leadership. Let's hope things get better.

You are making fun of our New England accent, Mr. Blumenauer.

Absolutely. We just were shown a map by naval executives, and I hesitate to say this because it is so scary, but the reality is that the entire Naval Shipyard and the Norfolk shipbuilding base which builds our nuclear carriers within a relatively short period of time, a few decades, is liable to be underwater. So we can't afford to continue to deny climate change, literally.

So I appreciate your leadership, again, on this, Mr. Blumenauer, and we have got to continue the fight.

Absolutely. And the executives, the folks who have been involved with the Navy who showed me this map of our naval shipyards, within my son's lifetime are going to be under water. They did say, well, if it is any consolation, Florida is in worse shape. Of course, it is no consolation that Florida is in worse shape than Virginia, but the reality is it is obviously not confined to Virginia; it is all along the low-lying coast. Unfortunately, by the time that some people wake up and accept it, it may very well be too late.

Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 275, I was detained at a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The amendment would strike both section 528 and 529 so I ask that they would be considered en bloc.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Sections 528 and 529 of this bill would restrict the Department of Justice from transferring detainees to the United States. The problem with this is that Guantanamo is now a rallying cry for extremists around the world. Until we transfer and try these detainees, there is no denying that Guantanamo is hurting our national security, and so my amendment would strike sections 528 and 529.

Mr. Chair, we are currently spending $2,670,000 per detainee per year at Guantanamo compared to $34,000 per year at a high-security Federal prison here in the United States.

In fiscal year 2014, the Department of Defense estimates that it is going to spend $435 million in operations and personnel costs to operate this facility. That money could so much better be spent on military readiness, medical research, improving the quality of life for our men and women in uniform.

The fact is, Mr. Chair, nearly 500 defendants charged with crimes related to international terrorism have been successfully convicted in the United States since 9/11, quoting a former Gitmo detainee: the Times Square bomber; the shoe bomber; and a 9/11 coconspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui. All of them are incarcerated in 98 Federal prisons here in the United States with no security incidents.

Now, by comparison, military commissions, which is the alternative, have managed to prosecute eight cases in that time, and many of them have, in fact, been overturned on appeal.

There are six DOD facilities where Gitmo detainees could be held in the United States that are currently only at 48 percent capacity.

The political and legal expediency of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is not worth the cost to America's reputation around the world nor to the erosion of our legal and ethical standards here at home.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), from the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the person that my good friend refers to is not a Guantanamo detainee. The reality is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not representative of the vast majority of Gitmo detainees who were brought 13, 14 years ago. There are a handful several years later that were brought to Guantanamo. They are really bad guys. They are kept separately. But I am talking about the people, 86 percent of whom were turned in for bounties, the majority of whom were not involved in combat activity against the United States or its allies.

We ought to look at this Guantanamo population and do what this country, our Founding Fathers, intended that we do. Give them a right to trial, prosecute them, and punish them.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.