Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the McKeon Amendment to H.J. Res. 124. This is a difficult decision because there are no good options for American intervention in Iraq and Syria. However, ISIL is a barbaric group that poses a direct threat to our national interests and it is our obligation to respond in an appropriate fashion to this new threat. I believe the counterterrorism strategy laid out by President Obama represents the best way to combat ISIL without committing our country to another costly, deadly ground war in the Middle East.

This amendment is not a declaration of war, or an authorization for the use of military force. Rather, it is a limited effort to train and equip members of the moderate Syrian opposition who have been vetted by our government. I am confident that the limitations and the reporting requirements in the resolution will ensure sufficient oversight, ensuring the mission does not expand beyond congressional intent.

Americans are weary of war. Any efforts to expand our role in this conflict should be openly debated in Congress. Yet, we cannot turn our back on the threat ISIL poses to our allies in the region, and the humanitarian catastrophe they helped create. I will be closely watching this mission as it unfolds to ensure it remains limited in scope and in line with our national interest.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Lt. Col. Matt Urban and to recognize his service to our great nation. As a veteran of World War II, I understand the great sacrifices made by the ``greatest generation'' and their families. Lt. Col. Urban is a true American hero and is worthy of recognition by this body.

Lt. Col. Urban is one of the most decorated soldiers of our time. He has received the Medal of Honor, Silver Star, Legion of Merit and the Purple Heart, among others. After enlisting in the Army on July 2, 1941, Lt. Col. Urban fought in six campaigns in World War II in the Mediterranean and European theaters. On September 3, 1944, after exposing himself to enemy fire while destroying two tanks with a bazooka, he was critically wounded and medically evacuated from battle. The following year, a fellow soldier recommended him for the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions in battle. Unfortunately, this letter was not received by the Army, which resulted in a great delay in recognizing his valor. However, thanks to hard work by his family, friends and supporters, Lt. Col Urban was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Jimmy Carter on July 19, 1980. He passed away on March 4, 1995.

The citation for his Medal of Honor states that Lt. Col. Urban deserves to be honored ``for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty.'' On August 23, 2014, his family will gather at Arlington National Cemetery for a wreath laying ceremony and celebration of his life. I join them in honoring Lt. Col. Matt Urban for his heroism in battle and many sacrifices he made on behalf of our great nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this great American.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the good work of NSF International and to commend them for their 70 years of service to citizens around the world. NSF International was founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation Foundation and aimed to set standards of quality for food and water. Since changing their name to NSF International in 1990 and expanding their influence to other areas, such as certifications for consumer goods and the environment, they have contributed greatly to the well being of our citizens and our planet.

NSF International is devoted to ensuring reliable and effective standards for all types of consumer goods, services and systems. The organization also provides auditing and risk management tools and solutions for the businesses and industries they support. They are truly great members of the business community as well as valued industry partners.

The sanitation and quality of our products and food present a monumentally important responsibility. We need to make every effort to ensure that people around the world receive healthy and safe goods and services that have a standardized backing. NSF International combines all of these values and I am proud to support their mission. I would like to thank NSF International for all their work over the past 70 years and wish them the best of luck in the future as they continue to work on behalf of people everywhere.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4250, the Sunscreen Innovation Act. This legislation proves that this body can work together, not only across the aisle but with the agencies under our jurisdiction and also with the industries concerned. This legislation has the support of everyone.

There is no opposition to it, and that includes the industry, it includes the

health people, it also includes the environmentalists, and it includes the administration. UV rays from the Sun are, it is understood, increasing the amount of melanoma amongst our people enormously--800 percent amongst young women, and 400 percent amongst young men over the past 40 years.

Sunscreens sold in the United States today do not offer the same level of protection as sunscreen sold in Europe, Canada, Australia, and other countries. In fact, the last over-the-counter sunscreen ingredient was approved by FDA in the 1990s. Some sunscreen ingredients have been waiting review by FDA for over a decade.

This is inexcusable, and it should not be permitted because FDA has taken so long to review these applications. It is clear that increased accountability is needed at the agency to ensure these pending sunscreen applications are reviewed in a timely and speedy manner.

I want to commend and congratulate my colleague, Mr. Whitfield, for his leadership and fine work on this, and also Chairman Upton for his outstanding work, and I want to congratulate my friends, Mr. Pallone and Mr. Waxman, for the good work which they have done on this legislation.

Indeed, the staffs on both sides of the committee have been remarkable in what it is they have done on this matter, and it is interesting to note that we have the strong support of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the Melanoma Research Alliance, the Environmental Working Group, and the Melanoma Research Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I insert letters from those agencies into the Record.

American Academy of Dermatology

Association,

Washington, DC, July 21, 2014.

Hon. Ed Whitfield,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Dingell,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Whitfield and Representative Dingell:

The American Academy of Dermatology Association (Academy),

which represents more than 13,000 dermatologists nationwide,

commends you for working together to amend H.R. 4250, the

Sunscreen Innovation Act, which would ensure that sunscreen

ingredients are reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) within a predictable timeframe. The

Academy applauds you for your work with stakeholders on this

legislation and is pleased to offer its support for the

Committee-passed amended bill, which has the potential to

reduce Americans' risk for skin cancer by ensuring that they

have access to the safest, most effective sunscreens

available.

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States

and one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their

lifetime. Dermatologists diagnose more than 3.5 million cases

and treat more than 2.2 million people with skin cancer every

year in the U.S. Research has shown that sunscreen helps

reduce the risk of skin cancer and is essential to protecting

the public from UV radiation. Proper use of sunscreen

combined with access to the safest, most effective

ingredients available will go a long way toward reducing

these statistics.

We applaud you for working together to amend this

legislation, which will ensure that sunscreen ingredients are

thoroughly and expeditiously reviewed in a timely manner. We

support allowing the Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee

(NDAC) to provide recommendations on sunscreen ingredients to

the FDA, and are pleased to see a provision under the amended

bill that would allow the Secretary to appoint members of

other federal advisory committees or outside consultants with

substantive expertise regarding sunscreen active ingredients

to the NDAC when sunscreen ingredients are reviewed. We are

also in favor of the provisions within the amended

legislative language that strengthen Congressional oversight

by requiring reporting of FDA's activities and progress in

the review of sunscreen ingredients.

We appreciate your continued leadership on this issue and

look forward to working with you in the fight against skin

cancer. If you have any questions or if we can provide any

additional information, please contact Christine O'Connor,

the Academy's Associate Director, Congressional Policy at

[email protected] or (202) 609-6330; or Niva Haynes, the

Academy's Manager, Congressional Policy at [email protected] or

(202) 712-2608.

Sincerely,

Brett M. Coldiron, MD, FAAD,

President, American Academy of

Dermatology Association.

I would like to observe that the staff has performed extraordinary work on this matter. I want to congratulate and thank Greg Sunstrum on my staff, as well as Taylor Booth, John Stone, Carly McWilliams, and Eric Flamm for their hard work on the legislation, and I want to recognize members of the PASS Coalition for their hard work and advocacy on behalf of this important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, so if the gentleman, my good friend, Mr. Whitfield, is ready, I am prepared to yield back with the strong urging to my colleagues to support this bill--which is strongly bipartisan--unanimously brought forward to the Congress and which has the strong support of both industry, government, and health groups.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 5021, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014. Once again, Congress has failed to lead on a critical issue that impacts the lives of every American. We need to make bold investments in our transportation infrastructure, which is currently in a state of disrepair. It should be embarrassing to every member of Congress that the American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave our nation's infrastructure a grade of ``D+.''

Instead of working towards a multi-year reauthorization of our surface transportation programs, which expire on September 30, 2014, Congress is once again kicking the can down the road. If Congress does not act to replenish the Highway Trust Fund, payments to states for transportation projects would be cut drastically. This would have detrimental impacts on our already modest efforts to improve our infrastructure and we must not allow this to occur. While I am disappointed in the lack of progress made on a permanent solution to this problem, I support this measure as a way to avoid catastrophe.

While Congress plays an important role in funding transportation infrastructure projects, states have an obligation in this area as well. I'm extremely disappointed that the Michigan State Legislature adjourned for the summer without reaching agreement on funding ongoing road projects in Michigan. All of our leaders, from Congress down to states, cities, and municipalities, need to make infrastructure spending a top priority rather than continuing to play politics with this issue.

While I urge adoption of this measure, I also hope my colleagues will join me in having a serious discussion about how to provide a long-term fix to our nation's infrastructure problems. Our constituents demand action on this critical issue.

Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Mr. Speaker, I support efforts by Congress to continue funding the Highway Trust Fund. This fund provides $3.2 billion of necessary resources for building and maintaining California's transportation system and growing the state's economy. With the passage of H.R. 5021, San Bernardino County's Omnitrans will be able to move forward with the purchase of 15 new transit buses to link the cities of Fontana, Ontario, Montclair, and Pomona. Projects like this are crucial to the local economy and construction projects across California's 35th Congressional District will continue through spring of next year.

This short term investment is an important first step, but it is time we make significant long term investments in the country's infrastructure and Congress must now take up The GROW AMERICA Act. This legislation is a four year reauthorization proposal that provides increased and stable funding for our nation's highways, bridges, mass transits, and rail systems. This will provide critical investments to fix our failing roads and crumbling bridges to ensure the safety of our transportation systems. Sixty five percent of America's infrastructure is rated in less than good condition and one in four bridges requires significant repair. Congress must act now by investing in our infrastructure to increase safety, build our nation's transportation workforce, and increase opportunity for the middle class.

This legislation will provide $5 billion in funding over four years for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Act. The TIGER grant program will continue to be available for another four years, extending successful transportation projects that serve the diverse travel and goods movement to meet the needs or the residents and businesses of California.

The GROW AMERICA Act will also empower regional and local communities to make transportation investments that support the growth of the economy and quality of life of the residents of California's 35th Congressional District. According to the Department of Transportation only 8 percent of federal highway dollars are now controlled by regional and local interests and additional authority over resources at the local level would increase the success of our transportation investments. This will ensure the public and interested parties can participate in the early development of transportation plans and review alternative development scenarios. Lastly, The GROW AMERICA Act will adopt local performance-based decision making to ensure regional priorities drive investment decisions and by implementing measures to reduce the amount of time to break ground on local projects.

This input from local stakeholders is very important for the communities I represent in the 35th Congressional District of California. As a major freight corridor for Burlington Northern-Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroads, San Bernardino County needs additional investment in grade separation projects to reduce traffic congestion. It often loses out on infrastructure grants to larger metropolitan areas. The GROW AMERICA Act will take our role as a freight corridor into account when determining funding for the Inland Empire.

Again, I commend today's efforts to continue funding the Highway Trust Fund, but it is clear that the success of our economy relies on the strength of our infrastructure. I urge Congress take up the GROW AMERICA Act and make the critical transportation investments needed to create jobs and increase opportunity in California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give special recognition to the celebrated efforts of the Downriver Linked Greenways Initiative and in particular, its partner organization the Riverside Kayak Connection. The Riverside Kayak Connection, located in Wyandotte, Michigan, is a kayak and canoe shop that successfully launched as a result of the Downriver Linked Greenways Initiative which began in 1999. This Riverside Kayak Connection is co-chaired by two very dedicated and community-oriented individuals who I am proud to call my friends: Marketing Director Anita Twardesky and Extension Educator Mary Bohling.

The ultimate objective of the Downriver Linked Greenways Initiative and its partner organization, the Riverside Kayak Connection, is to create an efficient regional pathway system that will connect the twenty-one Downriver communities, Wayne, and Monroe Counties through a network of non-motorized trails and greenways. The Riverside Kayak Connection's Detroit River tours are immensely popular among citizens in the Downriver area of Michigan and have helped to create a greater sense of awareness as to the ecological and economic opportunities that are present in and around the watershed. Both Anita Twardesky and Mary Bohling have been invaluable in leading this environmental, community- driven effort. The Co-Chairs offer a variety of services to assist communities in their greenway and water trail efforts, including technical consultation, project management, meeting facilitation, and grant writing assistance.

Anita Twardesky is an accomplished and respected recreation and trails professional. She also serves as Public Relations & Community Outreach for Riverside Kayak Connection where she is responsible for promoting outdoor recreation, paddle sports, and the ecotourism in the area. Formerly, she served as Parks & Recreation Director for the cities of Woodhaven and Flat Rock. Her appointments include Co-Chair of the Downriver Linked Greenways Initiative, Chair of the Trails Committee for the Michigan Recreation & Parks Association, and member of the State Wide Advisory Group Michigan Water Trails.

Mary Bohling, besides co-chairing the Downriver Linked Greenways Initiative, is also Co-Founder and Board Member of the International Wildlife Refuge Alliance, a non-profit organization created to support the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. She also chairs the Michigan Statewide Public Advisory Council as well, developing and implementing fisheries and wildlife habitat restoration projects.

The Riverside Kayak Connection has become an essential aspect of the Downriver community's effort to promote an efficient, environmentally friendly regional system that encourages a variety of travel options. I strongly appreciate and admire the hard work and dedication that the Riverside Kayak Connection has given to my district and the Downriver community in developing and encouraging diversity of travel. Today I express my sincerest thanks to the Co-Chairs of this great organization as they continue to make our waterways and greenways a treasure for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2575, the so- called Save American Workers Act. This is yet another attempt to chip away at the Affordable Care Act and it should be rejected. Just this week we saw 7.1 million people enroll in a health plan through the marketplaces, which met the goal set by the Obama Administration. For many people, this is the first time they have had access to quality, affordable health insurance. We should be building on the successes of the law, rather than working to turn back the clock.

There is much misinformation regarding the responsibilities of employers under the ACA. The law requires most employers to offer health insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week, and they must pay a penalty if one of these workers gets a subsidy through the marketplace. The threshold was set at this level because a large share of companies employ their workers for much more than 30 hours a week, and they would have to significantly restructure their business model and drastically reduce their hours to avoid their responsibility under the law. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, eight percent of employees work between 30 and 34 hours per week, but 43 percent of employees work 40 hours per week. Therefore, CBPP concludes that five times as many workers are at risk of having their hours cut if this legislation was signed into law.

The Congressional Budget Office projects H.R. 2575 would reduce the number of people receiving employer based coverage by 1 million, and would increase the number of uninsured by 500,000. This would be a drastic step backward from the progress we have seen enrolling millions of Americans in health coverage. Another claim made by my friends on the other side of the aisle is that this provision of ACA is leading to an increase in part-time work, when nothing is further from the truth. In fact, CBO concluded in February that ``there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of ACA.''

This bill would cause more problems than it purports to solve. I urge my colleagues to vote down this misguided legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4302, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. It is embarrassing that a year of hard work on a permanent replacement for the Sustainable Growth Rate is being thrown in the trash can for yet another politically motivated short-term fix. The American people sent us here to solve our nation's problems, not kick the can down the road yet again. Now is the time for a permanent solution to this annual problem, and the legislation before us today does nothing to give our seniors and our doctors any certainty moving forward.

Everyone in this body agrees that we need to start rewarding our doctors for the quality of their work rather than the quantity of their work. After months of hearings in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in conjunction with our colleagues on the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, we put our heads together and came up with a common-sense proposal to pay our doctors under Medicare for the next decade. Everyone agrees that this policy makes sense and should be adopted. We have work to do to find pay-fors for the legislation, but that is not an insurmountable task. Congress should be moving full steam ahead to find offsets for the policy we all agree on, rather than doing yet another short-term patch that will make a permanent fix more expensive and ultimately harder to attain.

Our constituents are tired of gimmickry and want real results. We should not have to deal with this issue on an annual basis. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 4302 and instead come together to find the necessary offsets to make a permanent fix to the Sustainable Growth Rate a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Mary Sue Coleman, the thirteenth President of the University of Michigan, as she retires at the end of June. I've had the distinct honor of working closely with President Coleman since 2002, when she began her hard work on behalf of this fine University, and her spirit and dedication will be missed. She has worked to raise standards, invest in a higher education for our students, and has further elevated the University of Michigan and continued its role among the absolute finest education opportunities in the land. She has ushered in a period of growth, not only across the campus, but also in the hearts and minds of the students she so tirelessly works for. Through her leadership, the University of Michigan and its students have remained ``the leaders and best.'' I thank President Coleman for her years of service and dedication to the people of Michigan. Go Blue!

Mr. Chair, I agree with my dear friend Chairman Whitfield that we must provide clarity on EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. However, as we have seen all too often in the 113th Congress, the legislation before us does nothing to address the underlying problem. Instead, this bill simply blocks the EPA from taking action without providing any alternative solution.

My first problem with this legislation is that it creates a peculiar and entirely new process for regulations under the Clean Air Act. This bill would take a long-established and reasonably well understood and turn it upside down to the great detriment of all of those in industry who are seeking certainty. This bill would then eliminate the delegation of rulemaking authority to EPA and set up Congress as a regulatory agency. Traditionally, Congress has given EPA the authority to develop regulations to address particular issues. I'm concerned that we may be setting a troubling precedent that allows regulations to be set without extensive public comments or technical data and input from industry and stakeholders.

Second, as I have seen time and time again this Congress, H.R. 3826 attempts to address an issue without dealing with the underlying law or providing an alternative solution. This bill does not amend the Clean Air Act to address the regulation of greenhouse gases but rather abolishes over 40 years of precedent by establishing an entirely new regulatory process. If Congress truly wants to legislate on this issue and pass legislation that can be signed by the President, let's put forward a comprehensive, bipartisan solution with both industry and other stakeholder support. I don't see anything in H.R. 3826 that approaches compromise or resembles an honest solution to the problems I've outlined.

Once again we have a bill before us that will pass with little bipartisan support, won't pass the Senate, and won't be signed by the President. While I understand this is an election year, we should be coming together to find workable solutions that can make meaningful change instead of creating more partisan rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th birthday of Al H. Chesser, President Emeritus of the United Transportation Union, a lifetime advocate for his brothers and sisters in labor, and my dear and wonderful friend.

I've had the blessing of working with Al for decades as he advocated and fought for the rights of countless workers throughout his career. His knowledge of the needs of our nation's workers and our labor laws, as well as his experience in the often delicate workings of Congress and our legislative process, made Al one of the most respected and relied-on leaders of the labor movement.

He began his work life in 1935, becoming a clerk at a Kroger grocery store in Kansas. He then went on to represent the Trainmen and then UTU, and served as a Vice President of the AFL-CIO's executive council, as well as Chairman of their Constitution Committee. Hard work and long hours have followed Al since that first grocery store clerk job, and-- through his dedication--our workplaces are safer and work quality has improved. He has spent his life making the rights and best interests of others his own, and to this day the lasting mark he's left on each and every worker and legislator he has encountered remains. I am proud to consider Al to be one of the most honorable and fine men I have had the blessing to work with, whether we were taking time just to speak as friends or working together to solve a rail strike.

I'm proud to recognize my dear friend Al Chesser as he is joined by friends and family in celebrating his 100 years of life on March 1, 2014, and I look forward to many more years of friendship.

Mr. Speaker, on January 23, 1789, America's first Bishop, the Reverend John Carroll, S.J., secured the deed to a plot of land overlooking the Potomac River in the State of Maryland to move forward in establishing what is today Georgetown University. That was 225 years ago this month and it occurred during the same year that these United States were formed. That was more than coincidence, but instead a recognition that an educated population would be critical to the success of this new nation.

A few years earlier, Father Carroll had laid out his vision for an ``Academy at George-Town, Potowmack River, Maryland.'' As he explained it in that document, Georgetown was

to be a place where ``. . . an undivided Attention may be given to the Cultivation of Virtue, and literary Improvement; and that a System of Discipline may be introduced and preserved, incompatible with Indolence and Inattention in the Professor, or with incorrigible Habits of Immorality in the Student.'' In short, his vision was for a place of serious learning which also reflected Jesuit values. Beyond that, Father Carroll made clear that he intended for the institution ``to agreeably to the liberal Principle of our Constitution, . . . be open to Students of EVERY RELIGIOUS PROFESSION.'' The emphasis was his, and, fortunately, that emphasis on diversity has been carried forward not only with regard to religious belief, but also in terms of geographic, ethnic and cultural aspects.

Indeed, when students first began studying at Georgetown in 1792, the student body included both U.S. and international students. That tradition has continued and evolved over the last two-plus centuries. Today, among the nearly 18,000 students who are enrolled at Georgetown--including undergraduate, graduate, medical and law students, students come from all fifty of the states of this country, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, and from 141 countries around the globe. Clearly, Georgetown is a national and a global university today. Over recent years, it has consistently ranked among the most highly regarded post-secondary institutions in the United States.

Since its founding and the granting of the federal charter by legislation enacted by this Congress in 1815 to ``the College of Georgetown in the District of Columbia,'' the University has grown and incorporated new components. In 1850, the Georgetown Medical School was established, and, in 1870, the Georgetown University Law Center began operation. In the first decade of the twentieth century, the Georgetown University School of Dentistry was established (1901), followed shortly thereafter with the opening of the ``Georgetown Training School for Nurses.'' In 1919, the Walsh School of Foreign Service was established, followed by the Institute for Languages and Linguistics in 1949 and the McDonough School of Business in 1957. Just this year, the University's Public Policy Institute became the McCourt School of Public Policy.

Indeed, this institution, which I am proud to call my alma mater, is a University that has remained true to its founding principles while evolving to reflect the changes that have taken place in this nation and, indeed, internationally. Having begun my own studies at Georgetown nearly six decades ago and maintaining ongoing contact with the University since that time, I can attest to the University's commitment to addressing the challenges faced by our society and its consistent focus on developing students who are ready to contribute to future prosperity and positive civic leadership.

There is no doubt that Georgetown has left an indelible mark on my life and my career in public service. Indeed, the University's Mission Statement identifies Georgetown as committed to educating women and men ``to be responsible and active participants in civic life and to live generously in service to others.'' Today, fourteen members of the House of Representatives, of both political parties and wide ranging political philosophies, hold Georgetown degrees. Likewise, six current United States Senators hold Georgetown diplomas. The same can be said of governors, cabinet secretaries and a large number of members of our diplomatic corps. Though we do not all agree on many policy issues, we all have been imbued with a commitment to public service that is an intrinsic part of what a Georgetown education is all about.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to study at Georgetown and to have witnessed its ongoing progress. I am proud to call the University's President, Dr. John DeGioia, a friend. He is indeed an exemplary leader for the University and in American higher education. To President DeGioia and everyone else with any tie to Georgetown, I extend hearty congratulations on this occasion and best wishes for the century ahead which will, no doubt, build on its sustaining traditions and its adaptability.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3547, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2014.

I wish to commend my colleagues in the House, Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking Member Nita Lowey, and my colleagues in the Senate, Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski and Ranking Member Richard Shelby, for

their hard work in constructing an omnibus appropriations bill that sticks to the Murray-Ryan budget agreement. For the last three years, Congress has struggled to pass appropriations bills and careened from one manufactured crisis to the next. It is my sincere hope that the funding bill we consider today is a first step away from that madness and a return to the regular order of the traditional budget and appropriations process.

With that said, I am generally content with the funding levels included in H.R. 3547. Not all Democrats and Republicans got precisely what they wanted in this bill, but that's the nature of compromise. Still, the bill lifts most of the sequester for the next year and ensures that important agencies and programs like the Food and Drug Administration, the National Park Service, the Department of Energy, and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, to name a few, can do their jobs and serve the interests of the American people.

It is high time to end the incessant and needless partisan bickering that has poisoned this place. Our founding fathers intended that Congress--which means ``a coming together''--should compromise in governing. I know a good compromise when I see it, and this bill is one. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, and vote for this bill. With this behind us, let's roll up our sleeves and get back to doing the people's work, which should first and foremost include an immediate extension of unemployment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3811, the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act.

There is a very real and pressing need for Congress to enact data security and breach notification requirements. But H.R. 3811 isn't the way to do it. At only a paragraph long, the bill is vague, far too limited in scope and, quite frankly, absolutely unworkable. It fails to define what constitutes ``personally identifiable information,'' a key component to any successful data security and breach-bill. It applies only to the Affordable Care Act and has no bearing on the sorts of massive breaches like the one Target just reported. And its 48-hour notification requirement would impede accurate reporting to consumers about whose and what information has been breached.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3811 isn't meant to solve a problem. It's another attempt by my Republican friends to throw egg on the Administration's face. Our consideration of this bill is also an affront to regular order because H.R. 3811 hasn't even been considered by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. That said, data security and breach notification legislation is absolutely necessary. If my friends on the other side of the aisle are truly willing to work on comprehensive bipartisan legislation, they'll find a willing partner in me. But they have to stop with cynical, politically motivated half-measures and genuinely commit to protecting the interests of consumers.

Vote down this bill.

I thank my dear friend from New York. I commend him for his outstanding service, and I appreciate his yielding this time to me.

Well, we have a bad bill on the floor. Frankly, I am embarrassed; and if I was one of the Republican managers of this bill, I would have a red face. Quite honestly, it does nothing except expose Federal employees to liability for actually enforcing the law.

No oversight was conducted to bring about the consideration of this legislation. No opportunity was made for the agencies to come forward and fully set out their concerns about how this bill is a bad piece of legislation.

As the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I handled the Superfund amendments in the reauthorization acts earlier. In that effort, it was a fully bipartisan undertaking, and we worked very closely with the Reagan administration, which was present and involved in all the conference meetings. The Senate at that time was under Republican control. President Reagan signed the act on October 17, 1986, after overwhelming votes of 386-27 in the House and 88-8 in the Senate.

At the one hearing that we had on this bill, I did not hear any support from the majority's witnesses. Most of them seemed to be somewhat embarrassed about the legislation and were unable to tell us anything that the legislation would accomplish in the public good or towards speeding up or improving the enforcement of Superfund.

It was interesting to note that there was really no identification of what the legislation would do to cure the problems that we confront with regard to Superfund. The Superfund program has been a fine example of success after having had a rocky start, and we have seen substantial completion of construction activities at over 70 percent of the national priority sites. Thousands of other shorter-term actions have also been completed.

Before charging headlong into solving problems that are not backed up with a factual record and with no showing whatsoever of a need for the legislation, I recommend that this body first gather the evidence that it needs from EPA, from States, from local governments, from industry and communities to better understand what, if any, problems need to be addressed. Until then, I fail to understand the purpose of this legislation other than a device to provide work for members of staff, to obfuscate the enforcement of Superfund and to, quite frankly, ignore the real problems which exist.

Superfund is cursed with the fact that it has major difficulty in being properly funded because the funding for it has long since expired, and now the ability of the Nation to fund the cleanup is not available to us. This bill would do nothing to address any of the problems that are there to be seen. It is a bad bill. It should be rejected.