Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it brings me sadness and honor to pay final tribute to Lieutenant Colonel James Warren, USAF (Retired). He died Saturday, May 17, 2014, of cancer in Vacaville, California. He was 90.

James served 35 years in the United States Air Force during World War II, Korea and Vietnam as a Tuskegee Airman, the first African American aviators in the United States Armed Forces. During his distinguished career, James flew over 12,000 hours and 173 combat missions. He was the first navigator to bring home a group of American POWs from North Vietnam aboard ``Homecoming One,'' and flew the Apollo 14 crew from splashdown near American Samoa back to the Manned Space Center in Houston, Texas. Throughout this extensive career James was awarded numerous medals for his exceptional service, including the Distinguished Flying Cross with two Oak Leaf Clusters, three Meritorious Service Medals, the Air Medal with eleven Oak Leaf Clusters and the Air Force Commendation Medal.

James Warren was a man of humble beginnings, born on August 16, 1923, into the racially segregated world of Gurley, Alabama. His mother worked hard to save enough money to buy him a bus ticket to Highland Park, Illinois, when he was 15 years old.

After graduating from high school, he enlisted in the aviation cadet program, arriving at Tuskegee Army Air Field, Alabama in November of 1942. Soon after in March of 1943, James was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Army Air Force, later graduating from Hondo Navigation School in August of 1944 and assigned to the 477th Bombardment Group, Medium.

Unfortunately despite his extensive military accomplishments, James' biggest battles were to break down the barriers of segregation. In 1945, James and his fellow African American members of the 477th attempted to integrate an all-white Officers' Club at Freeman Army Air Field. The incident led to the arrest of 102 officers, including one of its instrumental leaders, Lt Col Warren. This incidence is generally regarded by Civil Rights historians as a seminal moment in the drive toward full integration of the Armed Forces and later as a model for civil disobedience of the Civil Rights Movement.

For seven decades, Lt Col Warren was a living legend as a proud American, a decorated veteran, and as both a member and representative of the valiant Tuskegee Airmen. Even in retirement James continued his selfless service, tirelessly promoting the accomplishments of the Tuskegee Airmen and all African American participation in armed conflicts across the globe and sharing his infectious passion for flight with the next generation of Vacaville youth.

The challenges he faced, fought for, and overcame are a true inspiration.

I invite my colleagues to join me as I offer my condolences to his loving family, Xanthia, his wife of 61 years, and sons, James, Stewart and Dwayne and daughter, Sharron. He will be greatly missed. His legacy will live on as a source of inspiration for generations to come.

I wish Lieutenant Colonel James Warren ``high flight.''

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of California's Third Congressional District, I want to congratulate the AP Government students and their teacher at Rio Vista High School for completing a class project on three major policy issues: welfare reform, health care, and unequal access to education.

They demonstrated hard work in this inspiring program. Education is about developing knowledge and critical thinking skills. These students are civically engaged, reaching their lawmakers with policy recommendations on key issues facing our nation.

I was honored to learn more about their recommendations during a class visit on Tuesday, May 28.

Their willingness to work together in good faith and to build consensus is laudable and a lesson for us all.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the rather elucidating discussion on the way in which the committee system is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, in the Armed Services Committee, the most expensive single project was never allowed to be discussed, and that is the war in Afghanistan--$79 billion in the NDAA for Afghanistan and not 1 second of discussion about the role of America in Afghanistan and about the ongoing war.

The committee structure did not work. Therefore it is to this floor, it is to the membership of this House to take up this critical issue of what is the role of America in Afghanistan. Are we to continue this war or not? If we are to continue it, how are we going to do that? That is our business. That is the business that we were elected to do, and we have been prevented by the actions of the majority in the committee and on this floor to even deal with this issue, to even discuss it for one moment, except in this issue of how the rule is to be written.

This is not right, it is not fair to those of us who want to have a legitimate debate on the role of America in Afghanistan, and it is not in the interest of this country that this House forsake and forgo its responsibilities.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 5 to the end that the amendment stand rejected by the earlier voice vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Rahall and I would like to also compliment the chair for the great work on getting this bill together--obviously, bipartisan.

For my district this is extremely important. First of all, one of the reforms that came out of this is a ``3x3,'' which is now going to move across the country so that projects get done--at least the early studies--$3 million, 3 years done, and question then before the House whether we are going to move forward with that project.

The Sutter project, providing critical protection for Yuba City and that area. Also Notomas--I notice my colleague from Sacramento is here--providing critical protection for part of Sacramento.

The harbors, being able to use the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to deepen the harbors, all critically important.

This is an important bill. When we couple this with the Buy American/ Make It In America, we have an opportunity to really move forward the American economy, not only with the infrastructure jobs, but also with the manufacturing that could follow along.

Congratulations to the chair and the ranking members and the subcommittee chair and ranking members.

Mr. Chairman, congratulations to the chair of the committee and the ranking member for putting together a unanimous bipartisan bill. There is much to say in this bill that is good, and I would like to say about two things. One, the ISR capabilities of the military, particularly the Air Force, are maintained in this bill. The U-2 and the Global Hawk will continue to operate and provide critical intelligence to our military, operating now in the Sahel of Africa, chasing off Boko Haram.

This bill also provides us with the continuability to get to where we need to go. The KC-10 will remain in the force for the foreseeable future, until it is fully replaced by the KC-46s.

All of this is good. You need to know what is going on around the world, and you need to be able to get there, and this bill provides for that.

However, there are issues in this bill that we need to spend some time working on. It has been some 20 years since we have taken a hard look at the nuclear triad, an extraordinarily expensive and extraordinarily dangerous part of our military apparatus.

We are talking nuclear weapons here and the triad--the bombers, the ICBMs, and the submarines.

How do they fit? What do we need? How much do we really need to spend upon them?

Also, the nuclear weapons that go with them. The rebuilding of our nuclear weapons is a 20- to 30-year process, and we are talking about tens of billions of dollars. Too much? Enough? Maybe. Too much? Probably.

We also have to dispose of some 43 tons of unnecessary plutonium. How is that going to be done at the Savannah facility? There is money in this budget to continue a dead-end process. We ought to take a new look at that. And there will be amendments that will be proposed.

And finally, the big elephant in the room. We are talking about Afghanistan. $74 billion in this bill not debated, not discussed. We must do that. It is our obligation as Members of the House of Representatives and the representatives of the people of the United States to talk about what we are going to do in Afghanistan, and that needs to be done.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified with what I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, for some time, like more than an hour today, this House debated and discussed the issue of Boko Haram and the terror that they are enacting throughout Nigeria and the southern Sahel of Africa. This is not a new issue. This is an issue that has been ongoing among several violent extreme organizations operating in that area. We have seen this in Sudan. We have heard about the Lord's Resistance Army. We know this problem also of violent extreme organizations in the Somalia area.

The question arises: How do these organizations finance themselves? Well, over the years previously it was blood diamonds and things of that sort. In recent years, it has now become an issue of killing elephants and selling their tusks.

This amendment deals with the violent extreme organizations and attempts to deal with the way in which they have been able to finance themselves, that is, illegally poaching animals, particularly elephants in Africa.

If we are going to deal with this, we are going to have to use some of the assets that are available through the American military. AFRICOM has shown that they can provide ISR assets. This happened in Mali with the violent extreme organization that eventually was dealt with in Mali. AFRICOM provided the use of the ISR Global Hawk to identify and to support the French troops.

What this amendment would do would be to authorize the military, the Department of Defense, to work with African countries to provide support as they attempt to deal with these violent extreme organizations that are illegally poaching animals and using that revenue from that poaching, particularly the sale of ivory, to support themselves.

The amendment also provides for the opportunity for the African Union forces to receive assistance from the American military in how to position themselves to have the correct military units in place, how to use various intelligence sources that are available. It also provides for the Department of Defense to become part of the organization that we now have in place to deal with illegal poaching throughout Africa. That is basically what it is.

Had this been in place for the last couple of years, would Boko Haram have been successful? Well, they would be less successful. They would have less opportunity to poach the very valuable elephants and their tusks.

So I ask for support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas makes a very useful and interesting argument, but neglects to focus on one of the principal ways in which these organizations do support themselves, and that is with illegal poaching, particularly of elephants, and the use of their tusks to support themselves. It is about an $8 billion business.

This does not in any way deter the current power that the Department of Defense has, but rather, it allows them to engage with those organizations in these governments that deal specifically with the conservation of the species in those countries. It does not prioritize. It simply gives an additional role and augments the military's use of their equipment, particularly the ISR equipment, to focus specifically, but not only, on the poaching issue.

It is very clear from studies that have been done by conservation organizations throughout the Sahel of Africa and in other parts of Africa, that this is a significant source of revenue for these violent extreme organizations. We ought not ignore that.

I would ask for a positive vote on this matter in that it does not deter in any way from what the gentleman from Texas says the military is already doing, but adds to it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I took up an amendment a moment ago and people were talking about how we use our resources to keep these missile silos open when they are not needed and questioning whether missiles are needed. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars. So if we are really, really concerned about how we deploy our precious money, then we ought not be doing this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, recently, The Sacramento Bee wrote a three-page article on Alzheimer's and the effect that it has.

I would like to quote from that newspaper:

Gasps were audible as the images flashed before the

gathering scientists at a recent U.C. Davis Alzheimer's

Disease Center pathology conference. On the screen before

them were photos of a brain, severely wasted with age, with

what looked like silver rivers of atrophy cutting deeply

through the tissues. Even for the experts, it can be shocking

to see the damage that Alzheimer's disease inflicts on the

aging brain.

What can stop the devastation of Alzheimer's?

Without better answers from researchers, the degenerative

brain disease--already the Nation's sixth leading cause of

death--will be diagnosed in as many as 16 million aging baby

boomers by 2050. Unchecked, it will rob millions of their

memories and lives, of their pasts and futures, even as it

threatens to overwhelm the health care system.

Tonight, in a bipartisan 1-hour session, we are going to talk about Alzheimer's. Unfortunately, our time is being cut short, but we will take this up again in the weeks ahead as we deal with one of the most profound and expensive and damaging issues Americans face.

I have here a diagram that explains what is going to happen with Alzheimer's cost to Medicare and Medicaid in the years ahead. Right now, it is $122 billion, and it will rise in 2020 to $195 billion, to $346 billion in 2030, and by 2050, it will be approaching $1 trillion.

We have a problem. Americans--every family is facing this issue. My family has, and I suspect every other family in this Nation at one time or another already has faced this issue, and they will in the years ahead.

This is not a new issue for the Congress. It is an issue that has been dealt with. There has been legislation introduced, and in a few moments, I will talk about some of the bills that have been introduced by my colleagues here in the Congress, both on the Democratic and on the Republican sides of the aisle.

This issue has to be addressed, and the principal thing we need to do is to provide research and care and support for the families that have this issue in their midsts.

I want to take up a couple of other charts and then turn to my colleague from Kentucky.

This chart deals with the issue of what is going to happen with the funding. If we are going to solve this problem, we are going to have to increase the funding. We are, fortunately, spending around $5.5 billion a year on cancer through the National Institutes of Health.

HIV/AIDS is close to $3 billion a year. Cardiovascular issues are around $2 billion. Alzheimer's is down here at just over $566 million. We are not yet at $1 billion on this. As we can see here, this is going to be the most expensive illness facing the Medicare and Medicaid populations in the future years.

We also know of the deaths from the illnesses that have the greatest funding--breast cancer down 2 percent, prostate cancer down 8 percent, heart disease down 16 percent, stroke down 23 percent, and HIV--a remarkable success--with deaths now declining by 42 percent.

On the other hand, deaths from Alzheimer's are increasing at a rate of 68 percent.

So we are seeing this extraordinary shift occurring in the illnesses that are facing Americans and their families. We are seeing this extraordinary increase in Alzheimer's deaths as we see, thankfully, success. Often, that success is a direct result of what is happening with the research that is going on.

I would like now to turn to Mr. Guthrie, my colleague from Kentucky, as he discusses this issue from his perspective. And then we will spend the next 15 minutes in a dialog about this problem.

Thank you so very, very much. Thank you for being part of what, to my knowledge, is the first bipartisan hour. We ought to do this more.

This issue isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, a left or right issue. This is a true American tragedy--and one that is also going to be a true American financial as well as a family problem.

One of the gentlemen that has been involved in this from the very early days is my friend from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Tonko. I know you have had a very difficult evening with one of our colleagues who lost her spouse this evening. Thank you for caring for her and joining us this evening.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko.

I know Mr. Guthrie may have some additional remarks. We have got about 7 minutes. I am going to take maybe 3 minutes and talk about some of the legislation that is here. I am going to go through this very quickly.

Mr. Markey, who is now a senator, introduced H.R. 1507 when he was here

in the House. This deals with the Social Security and Medicare diagnosis.

Of course, we have the Accountability Act you have introduced, Mr. Guthrie.

There is H.R. 489, the Global Alzheimer's Resolution. Next month is Global Alzheimer's Month. This will be part of that effort to talk about this issue around the world.

We have H.R. 4543, the PACE Pilot Act, to keep elderly people in their homes, which was introduced by Chris Smith, who will join us the next time we come out on this issue.

And also, H.R. 2975, the Alzheimer's Caregiver Support Act, was introduced by Representative Maxine Waters and, again, deals with the kind of support that you and Mr. Guthrie were talking about.

One more. We have H.R. 2976, the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, dealing with the issue both of you have talked about with elderly or people with Alzheimer's that wander off.

All of these are bipartisan pieces of legislation. All of them in one way or another deal with this problem.

The one thing that is not among these is specific money for research, which I would hope comes from our efforts to talk about this and make this a major issue.

Mr. Guthrie, I know you have some additional comments.

Mr. Tonko.

I would like to close with a statement of hope and a statement of opportunity. Here is what happens when you spend money on research and on treatment. Breast cancer is down 2 percent, as well as deaths from these other cancers. Prostate cancer is down, heart disease is down, stroke is down, and HIV has a 42 percent decline. That is what research and treatment will do.

Alzheimer's is up 68 percent. That is what happens when you spend this kind of money.

Cancer, over $5 billion a year. The result, a decline in cancer. HIV/ AIDS, almost $3 billion a year. You see the extraordinary success of that. Cardiovascular illnesses, $2 billion.

Again, a decline in each and every one of these causes of death. With Alzheimer's, right around half a billion dollars. The result is this: increased deaths.

So we have a way of answering this question of what to do with this, and that is turn our focus on the research and the care and the support for the families. That should be our watch word.

I think that is a bipartisan way of going at this. That is something that we can focus on as 435 Members of this House and our colleagues over in the Senate. This is a bipartisan issue, a bicameral issue, with a known path to a solution.

With that, we are out of time this evening. I want to thank my two colleagues in a bipartisan hour, my Republican colleague from Kentucky and my friend who is often on the floor with me, Mr. Tonko.

We are going to come back and do this for another hour in the last half of the month of June. I know that there are several of our Republican colleagues that wanted to be here tonight. And I know the Democrats do, also. We will see if we can go move forward with a solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand on the House floor today to congratulate a star athlete from my district, an athlete who rose to the national spotlight with a remarkable win, with millions of people watching on TV and in front of a crowd of more than 160,000 people. I am talking of course about California Chrome, the winner of the 2014 Kentucky Derby.

California Chrome is a resident of Yuba City, where he lives with his human friends Perry and Denise Martin. The Martins bought California Chrome's mother for only $8,000, a bargain by horse racing standards. California Chrome's storybook rags-to-riches tale is sure to delight horse racing fans for years to come.

Congratulations, California Chrome, his jockey Victor Espinoza, and the Martin family. I know my family will be watching as you, California Chrome, aim to get one step closer to the Triple Crown at the Preakness on Saturday, May 17.

You have made California's Third Congressional District proud. Thank you, California Chrome.

Mr. Chairman, let's see. There are 435 of us in this House and maybe another 100 over on

the other side, give or take a few who may be retiring or who are on their way to other jobs. Each and every one of us has constituents come to us, seeking help and seeking our assistance in solving a problem. It is our work. That is what a Representative is. We represent the people in our districts, and we help solve their problems.

The veterans have a very special place in our offices, in my own notion of what I am supposed to do as a Representative. I know they have in Mr. LaMalfa's and, quite probably, in the offices of every other Member of this House. We have over 130 active cases with veterans in our districts, working through the problems that they have with the Veterans Administration. I must tell you that one thing that sets me off is when my staff tells me that we are not able to contact the Veterans Administration because they have sent the case to another office and that that office won't respond to us.

We talked about this amongst ourselves, Mr. LaMalfa and I and other Representatives in our area, and, frankly, we have had enough. We are the legislature of the United States Government. And the Veterans Administration has a task, and they had better be responsible and responsive to veterans and to those who represent veterans, namely the 435 Members of this House. It is part of our job.

When the Veterans Administration office in some far-off land or county or other State has been given a file from our district to handle and to work through because of an overload in our area and then they don't respond to us, then they get this piece of legislation.

Mr. LaMalfa, thank you very much. This ought to become law, notwithstanding the objection. We thank you for carrying this bill. Let's make this part of a law, and let's make this organization responsive to us and to our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lieutenant Albert J. Bagos who is retiring after more than 29 years of law enforcement service to the City of Fairfield.

After volunteering for over four years as a Cadet with the Fairfield Police Department, he was hired as a Police Officer on January 7, 1985. As an officer, he worked in various capacities that included Patrol, Investigations, Special Operations, Crime Suppression, and Field Training. Lieutenant Bagos joined the Special Activity Felony Enforcement (SAFE) Team in 1988 and was promoted to Police Corporal on December 31, 1999.

On June 30, 2000, Lieutenant Bagos was promoted to Police Sergeant and supervised Patrol and Traffic teams before being promoted to Police Lieutenant on February 4, 2005. He also earned an Exceptional Performance Citation in 2005 for managing FPD personnel and ensuring the successful production of the television show ``Extreme Makeover- Home Edition'' that was filming in Fairfield and would ultimately have national exposure. Additionally, Lieutenant Bagos' knowledge and extensive experience in street level operations led to his appointment as SWAT Commander on May 1, 2006.

Lieutenant Bagos' commitment to the community was evidenced by his positive, can-do attitude and handling of potentially dangerous situations on a daily basis. He is commended for his hard work and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, we are truly honored to pay tribute to our friend and dedicated public servant Lieutenant Albert J. Bagos. I ask our colleagues to join with us in thanking Mr. Bagos for his long and dedicated service to the City of Fairfield and wishing him continued success in all his future endeavors along with a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the legacy of Vacaville High School's Wrestling Program.

Under, Larry Nelsen, who served as the Head Coach from 1961-1993, the Vacaville Bulldogs procured 26 League Team Titles, 160 Individual League Champions, 15 Northwest Team Sub Section Championships, 77 Individual Sub Section Champions, 6 Sac Joaquin Team Section Championships, 28 Individual Section Champions, 5 Sac Joaquin Section Dual Championships, 2 CIF State Champions, 28 CIF State Place Winners, and 2 CIF Team Place Winners.

Under, Dave Nelsen, who served as the Head Coach from 1994-2000, the Vacaville Bulldogs procured 6 League Team Titles, 35 Individual League Champions, 6 Northwest Team Sub Section Championships, 27 Individual Sub Section Champions, 4 Sac Joaquin Section Dual Championships, 5 Individual Section Champions, 2 CIF State Champions, and 9 CIF State Place Winners.

Under, Richard Penaluna, who served as the Head Coach from 2001- 2005, the Vacaville Bulldogs procured 5 League Team Championships, 39 Individual League Champions, 5 Northwest Team Sub Section Championships, 26 Individual Sub Sections Champions, 4 Sac Joaquin Section Dual Championships, 3 Sac Joaquin Team Section Championships, 8 Individual Section Champions, 2 CIF State Champions, 19 CIF State Place Winners, and 1 CIF Team Place State Winners.

Under the current Head Coaches, Clint Birch and Adam Wight, who took over in 2006, the Vacaville Bulldogs have procured 9 League Team Championships, 97 Individual League Champions, 9 Divisional Section Championships, 46 Individual Divisional Section Champions, 7 Sac Joaquin Section Dual Championships, 7 Sac Joaquin Team Section Masters Championships, 20 Individual Maters Champions, 6 CIF State Champions, 25 CIF State Place Winners, and 7 CIF Team Place State Winner, of which all were in the top 10.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the impressive achievement of this fine school. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Vacaville High School's Wrestling Program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Office Specialist Debbie D. Wold who is retiring after nearly 25 years of service to the City of Fairfield.

Debbie was hired on August 21, 1989, as a Public Service Clerk for the Investigations Bureau. In 1992, she was reclassified to Transcriber and received a Department Commendation for her outstanding ability to completely and accurately transcribe complex police reports and interrogations in 1996.

On November 19, 1999, Debbie was promoted to Office Specialist and has provided superior administrative support to the Investigations Bureau, Training Unit, and Support Services Division over the years. Debbie received numerous commendations from co-workers and citizens for her teamwork, customer service and friendly demeanor. Debbie was also selected as the Police Department's Employee of the Quarter for July- September, 2011, and the Police Department's Employee of the Year in 1996 and 2011. Debbie is known to be reliable, detailed-orientated, and provides high quality of work.

Debbie has been a valued employee and her commitment to the City of Fairfield and its constituents was evident on a daily basis. She is admired for her hard work, dedication, and selfless contributions.

Debbie has been a valued employee and her commitment to the community was second to none. Debbie was a loyal representative of the City of Fairfield and admired for her hard work, dedication, and positive work ethic.

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

H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, is bipartisan legislation.

Maintaining a safe, reliable, and efficient maritime economy enables foreign and domestic trade to fuel the U.S. economy, and it remains vital. This legislation will provide the Coast Guard with the resources and policy tools it needs to fulfill its vital missions.

I want to thank Chairman Hunter and his staff for their willingness to work with me and several of the Democratic Members, and I also want to commend Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Nick Rahall for their valuable contributions to this bill. We thank the gentlemen.

H.R. 4005 will provide not only the budget stability for the Coast Guard for the next 2 years, it will also advance several important initiatives to revitalize our U.S. maritime industry.

For example, H.R. 4005 will better align the Coast Guard's mission needs with its long-term capital planning and annual budgetary processes, and explicit cooperative agreement authority is also granted.

It provides a new multiyear procurement authority for the offshore patrol cutter, the OPC, a critical and new asset. It directs the administration to enforce our cargo preference laws. No way out, guys. Enforce those laws and regulations, something that is long overdue.

It will streamline the administrative processes to make it easier for our veterans to get their civilian licenses and find jobs in the merchant marine.

Now, natural gas is a strategic American asset that is allowing America to enjoy low energy costs and a resurgence of American manufacturing. The export of LNG at a modest level could create even more American jobs if that LNG is transported on American-made LNG tankers flying the American flag with American sailors.

The currently approved export terminals will require approximately 100 LNG tankers. This tanker fleet could be American made, phased in as the LNG export terminals come on line and LNG exports grow. American shipyards could build these tankers over the next decade and beyond, creating thousands of jobs and maintaining a vital industrial base for America and our Navy.

This legislation does direct the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to assess how future transport of LNG on U.S. tankers could affect American job creation in the U.S. maritime industry. It is a good first step, but we should be doing more.

This legislation also directs the Department of Transportation to develop a new national maritime strategy, a much-needed revision and new thought into what that strategy could be.

The bill authorizes a needed increase in the funding for the Federal Maritime Commission, and the bill reauthorizes the Small Shipyard Grant Program through fiscal year 2017 to improve the quality and competitiveness of our small, domestic shipyards.

There is more to be done. Specifically, title 11 needs to be rewritten and redone so that our American shipyards will have the loan guaranties that they need to construct the ships, perhaps those LNG tankers.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4005 is responsible legislation. It deserves an ``aye'' vote, and I want to thank all of who have been involved in writing it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the good lady from Los Angeles, California (Ms. Hahn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the amount of time I have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

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

First, I just wanted to say that Congressman Rick Larsen entered his statement in the Record, and his statement speaks to the issue of the Coast Guard providing icebreaking services in the Arctic, and particularly the reconstruction of the polar sea.

I want to thank Mr. Hunter and the staff, Republican staff, and our staff on our side, David, and the people that worked on this particular piece of legislation.

This legislation is very important to the Coast Guard and to the American economy because it deals with the international trade. Ninety percent or more of the trade and services go by water. This bill provides the Coast Guard with the materials that it needs, with the budget authority, and with important reforms.

The legislation also provides considerable support for the Merchant Marine elements in our committee. It deals in part with the necessity for the national defense.

Chairman Hunter spoke to the issue of the Maritime Security Program. Similarly, the bill does speak to the Ready Reserve program as well as the breaking of ships, that is, the disposal of ships that have lost their usefulness. It is a comprehensive bill. There are a few more things that we should be doing in this piece of legislation that hopefully we will be able to take up in the Senate or in the conference committee.

I spoke earlier about the export of liquified natural gas, LNG. This is an enormous opportunity for America to rebuild its Merchant Marine. More than 100 ships will be needed to export that LNG. Those should be American-made ships, manned by American sailors, flying under the American flag.

I think we need, also, to work on title XI, the Loan Guarantee Program for ships that are built in the United States. It is very restrictive in its present form.

Chairman Hunter in his opening remarks also talked about the problem of the appropriations. While this bill does provide authorization authority that should be sufficient for all of these elements, the ultimate money available would be through the appropriation process.

I am very concerned about the austerity budgeting that has consumed this Congress for the last 3 years and appears to be continuing for the next 2. If that happens, all of the good intentions in this bill may be lost upon the shoals of an austerity budget. We need to pay attention to that.

It is a good piece of legislation. It has been a great honor to work on this subcommittee as the ranking member.

I yield back my remaining time, asking for a positive vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk about a couple of issues that are on the floor. I really want to spend this evening talking about an enormous opportunity that America has to further jobs in this Nation. It is a piece of legislation that passed off the House floor this afternoon. H.R. 4005, a piece of legislation that deals with the Coast Guard and the maritime industry.

But just a few words about the previous hour that was spent here talking about the 40-hour workweek. There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that does away with the 40-hour workweek, not at all. The 40- hour workweek remains, and, in fact, Democrats are trying to strengthen the overtime provisions that are needed to be put into effect, when men and women across the United States work more than 40 hours and do not receive overtime, time-and-a-half pay. So that is another thing.

We just basically heard yet one more effort by our Republican colleagues to eviscerate and otherwise put aside the Affordable Care Act, which now has perhaps 12 to 15 million Americans with some sort of insurance. Perhaps it is a new health insurance policy that they previously did not have available to them or they are on Medicaid or they are on their parents' health insurance. Well over 12 million Americans now have insurance because of the Affordable Care Act.

They also have guaranteed coverage. No longer can an insurance company discriminate against them because they have a preexisting condition. No longer are newborn babies denied coverage because they are born with some sort of a medical problem. That is what used to occur in America before the Affordable Care Act.

Also, it is kind of ironic, if you will, that we just heard an hour of discussion on the 30-hour workweek, the 40-hour workweek. The 30 hours only talks about when an employer must provide insurance for their employees. It doesn't take away anybody's 40-hour workweek at all.

However, the ironic part is today, the Republicans announced the new Ryan budget, which seriously impacts every American's health care policy. The new Ryan budget repeals the Affordable Care Act and those guarantees of coverage that I spoke of just a moment ago. The guarantee that a newborn child with a medical problem has insurance was wiped out by the proposal that was introduced by Mr. Ryan today. The guarantee that every woman is no longer discriminated against because she is a woman, a female, that guarantee was wiped out by the proposal that was put forward by Mr. Ryan today.

The guarantee that there are no more limits on coverage. Before the Affordable Care Act, if you came down with cancer and your insurance policy, as was common, had a total limit on the coverage, you would blow through that coverage and then bankruptcy was in your future. Oh, unless, of course, you didn't take the medical care. So these basic guarantees of health insurance availability were wiped out, or would be wiped out, by Mr. Ryan's budget that he proposed today.

Similarly, something that is really important for every senior is seriously affected by the Republican Ryan budget that was put forth today. It was 1965 that Medicare went into effect. Lyndon Johnson signed that bill. I actually have a photo of the speech that he gave here on the House floor, calling for the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid. It was 1963, '64 when that occurred.

The budget proposal that was put out by Mr. Ryan today would effectively end Medicare, as we know it. And if you are 55 years of age or younger, you would not have Medicare when you become 65. Instead, you would be given a voucher and told, go buy insurance in the health insurance market, which was so roundly criticized by our Republican colleagues today, and the improvements that have been made in that market by the Affordable Care Act.

So let's try to get this straight. First of all, a proposal put forward today by the Republican majority in this House would effectively end Medicare for every American who is 55 and younger and put those people into a health insurance market that has had all of its guarantees of coverage, all of the consumer protections, all of the consumer Bill of Rights in the Affordable Care Act repealed. So on the one hand you repeal all of those protections, and then on the other hand, you take every American 55 years and younger and force them into that dog fight with no protections in the private health insurance market. I don't think we want to go there. I don't think we want to go there.

What we want to do is to make sure that seniors have affordable Medicare insurance. But the proposal put forth today will deny those men and women that are currently in Medicare the opportunity to have the doughnut hole, the prescription drug doughnut hole, removed. Instead, the proposal put forth today would increase that doughnut hole, sending seniors back into the unaffordable prescription drug program that existed before the Affordable Care Act. So if you are a senior out there, beware. Beware of the budget proposal that was put forth here in the House of Representatives today because there is serious harm to you in 2016, should that proposal ever become law.

We will fight that. We don't want Medicare to disappear, as we know it. We don't want a voucher program that forces seniors into the clutches of the private insurance companies without the protections that are presently in the Affordable Care program.

I didn't intend to talk about this today. But following on the previous hour from my colleagues who were talking so vehemently against the Affordable Care Act, I thought we ought to have a discussion about what is in the Affordable Care Act, all of the protections that are there for every, every American, whether they are 65 or older. And oh, by the way, if you are 65 now and you are on Medicare, you have an annual free medical checkup--high blood pressure, diabetes, all of those things that can affect you--an annual free checkup which has already shown that it keeps seniors healthy longer and has dramatically reduced the cost of Medicare this year and will continue to do so in the years ahead.

Now, what I really wanted to talk about was something really good and really positive that happened here on the floor of the House today, and that was the passage of H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and Maritime legislation that reauthorizes the United States Coast Guard for 2 more years, expands their opportunities to protect our waterways, our lakes, and to protect America in the oceans that surround this great Nation. It also provides an opportunity for the mariners who want to enter that profession from the armed services, who may have been in the Navy, who have gained certain skills, so that they can get a license to be a mariner, to be a sailor, to be a ship's captain or an officer on one of our merchant marine ships. There is more that we can do with this piece of legislation, and I want to put it up here so that we can take a look at some of the opportunities that exist in this law. Here we go.

About 20 years ago, there were several hundred American-flagged ships and several tens of thousands of American sailors that were bringing American commerce, exports, and imports into our ports. So if we support the growth of jobs and the growth of trade, then we need to support the merchant marine and Coast Guard renewal act that passed the House today because it provides these opportunities.

This is not an LNG tanker. But the United States may very well be exporting liquefied natural gas. Rather than importing, we are likely to be exporting. Seven permits have been granted to the gas companies to export LNG, liquefied natural gas.

That is good, to a point. Export too much of this, and a strategic American

asset will be wasted, and we will lose the opportunity to have low-cost energy in the United States.

That low-cost energy, a result of an abundance of natural gas that we now have in the United States, will be lost if we export too much of that gas through the liquification and the export of it.

Right now, we are somewhere around 10 percent of the total supply would be exported; and economists tell us, at that level, we are not going to see a rise in the cost of energy in the United States. That is good, and it is good for the gas companies.

They have been drilling, and if they are able to export this, they are going to make a substantial profit on that gas that they are allowed to export, a very handsome profit, because we have seen the Ukrainian situation with Russia threatening to shut down the supply of gas to Ukraine and quite possibly to Western Europe.

Well, the cost of gas in those countries is two, three, and, in some cases, four times what it costs here in the United States; so the gas companies naturally want to export to that market, to take advantage of the higher prices there.

All well and good, if it is limited. Even at that limited rate, we could see over 100 new, American-made ships handling that export.

We need to be very aware here in Congress that American policy--the laws--have everything to do with American manufacturing; so if we are going to Make It In America once again, we need to use every opportunity to enhance our manufacturing base.

The export of billions--and indeed trillions--of cubic feet of natural gas from those seven export terminals could lead to 100 or more new tankers, LNG tankers, in the export of that gas, sending that gas all around the world, liquified natural gas.

We can build those ships here if we use our public policy wisely and simply require that American natural gas be exported on American-made ships built in American shipyards made by American workers and then flagged and sailed by American sailors, building, once again, the American merchant marine.

We have this opportunity. We should not lose this opportunity. Now, we may run up against certain trade barriers put there by the World Trade Organization. We need to find a way to maneuver around those trade barriers and use every opportunity that this strategic natural asset gives to this country, to use that not just for the benefit of the gas companies and their profits, but also to the benefit of American workers, American steel companies producing the steel, American engine companies building the engines for these tankers, and American shipyards putting together these ships that will be exporting this natural gas.

The liquefied natural gas industry opportunity must not be missed. We must, once again, rebuild the American shipping fleet by 100 tankers. It is a very real possibility. We must not lose that possibility.

In the legislation that passed today, we see the opportunity for the Coast Guard to build new offshore patrol cutters. We see an opportunity for the maritime industry to enter into the manufacturing of ships from American shipyards, and we see the opportunity for the Coast Guard to protect America's ports. These are things that must be done, and this is public policy at its best.

However, there is a threat to all of this. The threat is found in the reality that passing an authorization bill is the starting point. It authorizes the expenditures.

The question then goes to: Will there actually be an appropriation that will fund those new ships for the Coast Guard, that will fund the merchant marine, the Ready Reserve fleet, and the maritime shipping programs?

That is on the appropriations side, and that will bring me back full circle to where I started this discussion.

The budget that was proposed today by Mr. Ryan and the Republicans decimates the programs that would fund the education of the mariners in the maritime academies, that would fund the new ships for the Coast Guard, would decimate the opportunity to build the marine security program that puts ships available for the military, shipping men and equipment to wherever they are needed in the world if there is some trouble out there that the military must respond to, that decimates the funding for the programs that are in the Coast Guard Maritime Authorization Act.

We need to be consistent here. It is not enough to vote by unanimous consent off this floor a bill that authorizes a robust Coast Guard, that authorizes the rebuilding of the maritime industry, that authorizes the pay level for our coastguardsmen and women, and simultaneously put forth a budget that would defund or largely eliminate those programs.

So the question is: Are we prepared to create jobs in our Nation or not?

A final point goes to something that is really important in my district, and it is this: the levees that protect the tens of thousands of citizens in my district from flooding. This is a picture of a levee that broke in California some time ago, and the flooding devastated a community. This is a threat all across America.

The question for us here on the floor of the House of Representatives is: Are we willing to put together an infrastructure program like the President had called for in his budget? Or are we going to go with the Ryan budget which reduces--significantly reduces--the investment in critical infrastructure that protects our communities?

I could just as easily put a picture up here of a bridge that has collapsed and of roads with potholes. In this Nation, our water systems are antiquated, our sanitation systems are inadequate, our levee systems don't meet the needs to protect our community; and in California, with a major drought underway, we do not have the money to build the water storage systems to protect the world's largest agricultural sector, California agriculture, and certainly the Nation's largest agricultural sector, or the cities and the communities that depend upon the water.

We have enormous infrastructure needs. The President, in his budget, put forth a major undertaking to fund new infrastructure by ending tax breaks for American corporations that are sending jobs overseas.

On the other hand, put forward today by my Republican colleagues is a minimalist program--not a robust program that would put millions of Americans back to work--but rather a minimalist program that actually would continue the decrease in the expenditures on infrastructure.

Let me just put up one more chart here, and this is a chart of where we are going with infrastructure spending at the Federal level. This is 2002. In 2002, we were spending somewhere in the range of $325 billion a year on infrastructure.

In 2012--and we are not even at the lower level called for in the sequestration--we are down to less than $250 billion a year on infrastructure, all Federal expenditures--highways, levees, ports, water systems, and sanitation systems, all of that. From $325 billion, we have lost $75 billion. Those are American jobs that are not coming into play.

If we take the budget proposal today from Mr. Ryan, this number will go even lower. We can't do that. This Nation is built on its infrastructure, it is built on its education, it is built on its support for seniors, and it is built on the humanitarian instincts that we have.

And what are we getting from our majority? Less--less infrastructure; less for seniors; less for Medicaid, the poor, and the elderly; and less Pell grants for those kids that want to go to school.

That is not how you build this economy. You build this economy on a great education system that has to be funded, kids that can go to college, not less Pell grants, but more, so that kids can find an affordable college education; more infrastructure investment, not less.

But go with the President. He would have us back up to this number, 325 billion, not the 75 billion less that is in the current budgets, the current austerity budgets or the budgets that have been proposed by Mr. Ryan today.

Are we going to build America or not? We put forward a major bill, the Coast Guard bill, and then we don't fund it; so it becomes hypocritical and devastating to the American economy.

For those seniors that depend on Medicare, the Ryan budget, instead of

closing the doughnut hole for prescription drugs that cost seniors that have serious health care an enormous amount of money, it opens it so, once again, seniors are going to have to pay for drugs that they cannot afford. The Affordable Care Act closed that.

Choices, we are going to make choices here. We are in the process of deciding what the budget will be for the Government of the United States.

Will it be a budget that provides the fundamental needs to grow this economy, education, and manufacturing so our shipyards and so our bridges can be built with American workers? Are we going to do that or not? Are we going to take care of the seniors? Are we going to educate our kids?

These are the questions that we confront here, and I would ask our colleagues to stop the--I don't know--3-year effort now to repeal the Affordable Care Act and, rather, work on making that new system effective, efficient, and viable.

It is the path we are on. It is not a government-run health care system. In fact, it is a private insurance system that has now been added with protections for the consumers, the consumers' health care bill of rights.

Don't repeal it. Make it work better. Work with us to address those problems that we know exist in the system. No program has ever been perfect, and we can do better here. That is our goal.

So today was a good day for me. As ranking member of the Coast Guard Maritime Subcommittee, we put forth a good policy--not complete--we need to add to it, and hopefully, that will happen when the bill is taken up in the Senate; but at the same time, we hear a continuing call to do away--to eliminate the patient's bill of rights. We don't want to do that.

I am going to yield back my remaining time here and just put this question before all of us. This is a country that needs to grow. This is a country that needs to prosper, and we need to work across the aisle here, just as we did last week with my colleague, Mr. LaMalfa, a Republican, a conservative.

We said we need to build something in California. We need to build a water storage system. So we have introduced legislation, the sites reservoir legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation, a major infrastructure reservoir for the State of California, where we can store water for the drought that is going to come--not for the current drought, that opportunity was lost years ago--but for the next drought, nearly 2 million acre feet of water to be stored to be available for farmers, for the city, for the environment, to be used when needed when the rain is not there.

That is the kind of bipartisanship that we need. We need to come together. We need to spend our money wisely and efficiently. We can do that in a bipartisan way. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. LaMalfa, for working on a project that is desperately needed in California. We need those levees all across this Nation.

We need those shipyards building American ships to carry that natural gas all around the world. We don't need to do too much of it. We don't want to drive up the price in the United States. We want to make sure that if we are going to export a strategic national asset that all of America benefits--not just the gas companies, but all of America--the shipyards, the shipbuilders, the steelworkers, the plumbers, the pipe fitters, the electricians, those middle class jobs, 100 ships. It is possible. We need to work together to make that happen.

We have got a full agenda ahead of us. An austerity budget won't make it. It is going to harm this Nation. It is going deprive us of what we need to do: to build the infrastructure, to educate, to do the research, and to make this country move forward. Hopefully we will make a wise decision

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back my remaining time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 46 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.