Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor with a letter from a constituent, a businessman, and I will just read parts of it:

I did not need to read about the ObamaCare health insurance

tax increase that will be passed on to small businesses. It

has already happened to my small firm. Last week I was

advised by my insurance agent that Blue Cross and Blue Shield

of Illinois is increasing my rates by more than 38 percent.

I want to relay to you that due to a decrease in business,

likely caused by uncertainty of our future, I have had to

release one employee and have advised all remaining employees

that the increase of health insurance premiums will be passed

on to them. I was proudly able to pay 100 percent of

employees' health care coverage, but after two consecutive 20

percent increases in the last two years, and the latest 40

percent increase, simple business logic requires that I pass

on this increase or simply go out of business. My employees

will have less take-home pay under ObamaCare. Does anyone in

Congress realize that under this still uncertain program, it

is more logical for me to shut down my business and take the

subsidies on one of the exchanges than to remain open?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2315, Preserving Access to Orphan Drugs Act of 2013, be re-referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and, in addition, to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have spent much time talking about the need for Congress to consider jobs legislation. This is a piece of pro-jobs legislation. This bill is unique because it is also a pro-states' rights legislation and pro-environment legislation.

But focusing on jobs for a minute, let me explain why a ``no'' vote is anti-jobs, placing anywhere from 39,000 to 316,000 jobs at risk at a time when we can least afford it.

We are here because over 3 years ago the EPA put out three proposals on coal ash, including regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste. This caused massive uncertainty in the marketplace and created an unnecessary stigma on legitimate recycling of this product, and I have a piece of shingle that's made and produced by coal ash.

And the States agree. As highlighted in a letter from the State of Michigan in support of H.R. 2218:

Enactment would end the regulatory uncertainty that has

hindered our efforts to promote the beneficial use of coal

combustion residuals.

EPA announced in litigation proceedings recently that it will not have a final coal ash rule before 2014. The fact that EPA continues to leave a ``hazardous waste'' designation on the table even though three decades of science and fact point the other way, that coal ash is not hazardous, it directly is contributing to the loss of current and future recycling.

Coal ash is not an abstract substance. It is used in important infrastructure in this country. The American Coal Ash Association informed us that uncertainty in the marketplace caused by EPA's proposal to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste is diminishing their economic prospects down to just 40 percent of eligible coal wastes--and they support this bill.

This bill establishes a solid framework for regulation of coal combustion residuals in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment, or the State environmental regulators--including the Environmental Council of States, ECOS, and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management officials--would not be endorsing this bill.

Coal ash makes concrete stronger, more durable, and cheaper. A ``no'' vote against this bill means that you support less durable, more expensive highways, schools, and green buildings. Don't take my word for it. The American Road and Transportation Builders Association and many other road and bridge builders, and also the Building and Construction Trades Union, want this bill because they want high- quality construction material for buildings, roads, and bridges.

For Members concerned about wall board from China, coal ash is a stable, domestic source for wall board and will control costs. Don't take my word for it. The American Forest and Paper Association supports this bill.

Mine workers across this country need a stable way of having America's energy future secured. This bill accomplishes that. Don't take my word for it. Ask the United Mine Workers, who supports this bill.

Coal ash is recycled and used as a raw material in making cement. Voting ``no'' means you choose to put coal ash in landfills rather than putting it back into roads and building projects. Don't take my word for it. Organizations like Portland Cement Association, the Phoenix Cement Company, the Wisconsin Ready Mix Concrete Association, and the Washington Aggregates and Concrete Association all support this bill.

A vote against this bill is a vote for prolonged regulatory uncertainty. A vote against this bill is a vote to increase costs on the Federal, State, and local governments and infrastructures. A vote against this bill is a vote to increase costs on all Americans and to dare unemployment to go even higher. A vote against this bill is a direct message to career State employees in States across this country that you do not trust them to do the right thing regarding regulation of coal ash.

This bill is a pro-jobs, pro-environment, anti-bureaucracy bill. If you want progress instead of process, protection instead of politics, and jobs instead of continued uncertainty, vote for this bill.

We find ourselves in this morass of regulatory uncertainty because of the existing approach to environmental regulation. This bill presents a new approach that will reduce the inefficiencies of the Federal rulemaking process by setting a national standard in the statute and charging the States with implementation.

If you support protecting jobs and preserving states' rights, and if you trust your State environmental regulators to protect your communities, you need to support this bill and vote ``yes'' on final passage.

With this, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague to look at the 11 additional changes that have been made in this bill versus the last bill and realize how much we have moved in the direction that he speaks of.

I now yield 7 minutes to the author of the legislation from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that the administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues of some of the special interests: United Mine Workers of America, Building and Construction Trades, and the Transportation Workers of America.

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member who has been very helpful on this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I want to thank my colleague from Texas, who has helped us move the bill forward.

I would remind my colleagues that the President has not issued a veto signal on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a neighbor to my congressional district.

Mr. Chairman, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management wrote a letter in support of this bill and its safety and protection.

Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from California, we're waiting for a few Members. I'm not sure they are going to get here. I'm willing to have you close, and then I'll close after you're finished.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It's been a great debate. It's been a great process. I'll just summarize some of the issues. Yes, the issue is about beneficial reuse, like this shingle here; but it's also about the storage.

We were very close to passing this legislation the last Congress, as the ranking member knows. This bill is better, as my colleague from Texas says. There are 12 additional changes made in this bill versus last year's bill that addresses many of the concerns that the minority asked and also concerns by the Environmental Protection Agency. We worked very closely with them. That is why--and I'll say it again--the administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill. That's a signal that they may have issues, but there's not an outright veto threat on this bill. That's a signal that we've worked with them to address some of the major concerns.

Again, I want to highlight some of the special interest groups that are forcing this legislation, like the United Mine Workers, the building and construction trades, the transportation workers. Those who are historically considered in the minority's coalition are now moving to the pro-job coalition of this bill and hopefully other bills in the future.

I want to reemphasize that the EPA in 1993 and 2000 stated that coal ash does not have the characteristics of hazardous waste, including toxicity, and should not be regulated under subtitle C. That's not us. That's the EPA, and that's the EPA making that ruling twice.

We believe that the Federal Government can set standards. We believe that the Federal Government can enforce that the State do certification, and we trust the States to be able to monitor and meet the standards. That's why I listed in support the Environmental Council of the States and Indiana's Department of Environmental Management, because what they want to do is get a handle on this. And let's not confuse the issue. If the EPA is able to label fly ash as toxic, it does depress the beneficial use. So the cheap concrete that's mixed with fly ash will not be put in. The road mitigation issues which we've done will not be put in. My colleague, Marsha Blackburn, did a great job talking about how we use today coal ash and fly ash.

So I want to thank my colleague, Mr. McKinley, for moving this bill and my colleagues on the subcommittee, who have made the changes and moved it forward. We look forward to the debates on the amendment, and we look forward to passing the bill and sending it to the other Chamber and eventually a signature by the President of the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for working with us and making some changes that we thought were appropriate.

We agree with my colleague from Virginia that States should identify what their emergency response procedures are in the certification process, and so we are prepared to accept the amendment. He's made it a better bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the State permit program must incorporate minimum requirements which are based on regulations promulgated by the EPA to ``protect human health and the environment,'' which include groundwater monitoring of all structures, fugitive dust control, structural stability requirements and closure of structures that cannot be corrected.

The premise of this is, if you have Federal standards, that they're not protective, and that the States will not do that.

We find this debate very curious, in that my colleagues on the other side have so much of a disrespect for the States and their environmental communities and the ability of States to ensure the protection of human health, the environment from a State position, Federal standards, State certification process, States.

Under RCRA, the States do this anyway. This is what the States do. Under the Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Act, the States are the ones who are enforcing this. All we're doing is saying we can do this now for fly ash and coal ash.

So while my colleague's amendment is well-intentioned, it really undercuts the purpose of the legislation and is unnecessary because the bill contains specific criteria by which the EPA will judge State permit programs, and I listed those earlier.

This is a politically appealing amendment, but it has many flaws, not the least of which is that any State can request that EPA review another State's coal combustion residual permit program, regardless of the location, and whether there is actually a cross-border impact.

As my colleague pointed out in the Rules Committee on Tuesday, there's no requirement in this amendment that a State that requests a review needs to even be impacted by the contamination allegedly coming from another State.

While my colleague has probably scoured the country to come up with an example or two of coal ash contamination crossing State lines, the fact of the matter is that cross boundary is not really an issue with respect to coal ash disposal because regulation of solid waste disposal is typically an issue that remains within the State.

This amendment attempts to create another hook for the EPA to measure State coal combustion residuals permit programs using the subjective yardstick of what is protective of human health and the environment, which my colleague did a good job defending in the other amendment.

I understand that my colleague believes that the Federal Government must step in to save the day, but I trust that our State environmental regulators are up to the task of making sure that our communities are protected.

This amendment diminishes the important role of the States, and I urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the basic premise of this bill is that the Federal Government can set safety standards and the States can enforce it, so reject the motion to instruct.

I am going to turn my comments to people who live in the coal areas of our country. Coal is just not a commodity product, it is, really, a way of lifestyle if you live in coal country.

I am a fourth-generation Lithuanian immigration family. My great- grandfather went directly into the coalfields. My grandfather went into the coal mines at age 10. He performed the job of a trapper.

In my hometown of Collinsville, Illinois, we have Miner's Theater; in a community up north, we have Miner's Park; and in Gillespie, Illinois, we have Black Diamond Days.

Coal is a culture. Coal is who we are. That is why I really appreciate my colleagues from West Virginia, David McKinley and Shelley Moore Capito. There are some States in this Union that coal is their only job, and that's why they fight and they stand up for coal.

I remember being with the late Senator Byrd in a rally on The Mall to save coal jobs. He held up his hands and he said, ``There's coal in these veins.'' This was Senator Byrd--``There's coal in these veins.''

My colleagues and my friends, that's how we feel in coal-producing States in this country. It is part of who we are. It is our culture.

Now, don't think this is a passe debate. There's a young Iraqi vet named Jimmy Rose. You may have seen him. He's 32 years old. He's also a coal miner. He's competing on ``America's Got Talent.'' Do you know what his song is? His song is ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.'' He talks about feeding his

family. He talks about putting coal in the family household. He talks about that's their livelihood, that's their culture. It's an impassioned ballad for areas of our country that feel under attack, left behind, attacked by this administration.

Mayor Dietz from McLeansboro, Illinois, is happy when new coal is opening up. Coal is keeping the lights on in the small communities and the shops and stores for a community that's kind of been left behind for 40 years. He's excited about the jobs and the tax base that's coming because of coal.

I'm asking you, my colleagues, to stand up for coal, because coal keeps the lights on. I request that you reject this amendment and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2218.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chaplain Howard Bell who led us in the opening prayer.

The tradition of the opening prayer began with the Continental Congress in 1774 when Reverend Jacob Duche of Philadelphia offered a prayer at its start. Since that time, the House has enjoyed over 200 years of service from the Chaplaincy of the House and our guest chaplains.

Chaplain Bell has faithfully served in churches in Missouri and Illinois since 1988. While serving his church, Chaplain Bell was commissioned a chaplain captain in the United States Air Force Reserves in 2002 and was assigned as an Individual Mobilization Augmentation to the 375th Air Wing at Scott Air Force Base.

In 2008, he was deployed to Afghanistan and assigned to the 455th Air Expeditionary Force at Bagram Airfield as the hospital chaplain, where he received the Army Commendation Medal. Since then, he has received the Air Force Commendation Medal, the International Security Assistance Force Medal, and the Afghanistan Enduring Freedom Medal. Chaplain Bell was also appointed wing chaplain of the 932nd Airlift Wing, where he supervises the ministry for nearly 1,200 airmen in the wing.

He is married to Reverend Penelope Barber and has two children, David and Rachel. Currently, he is the pastor of the Farina United Methodist Church in Farina, Illinois, and of the Louisville United Methodist Church in Louisville, Illinois.

It is my honor to welcome a man who encompasses so many of the wonderful qualities of the people of Illinois, and I would like to personally thank Chaplain Bell for offering this morning's prayer.

Mr. Speaker, the President's health care law is unworkable. Hardworking Americans know it, and, unfortunately, they're going to see their premiums skyrocket.

Small business owners know it. They're going to have to scale back hiring and maybe even let some people go.

People in the President's own party know it. Senator Baucus from Montana, a key author of the legislation, called it a ``train wreck'' not long ago.

And now, the administration has admitted it themselves. They decided to delay the employer mandate for a year. Why? Because, despite the President saying that it's working the way it's supposed to, we know it's not working at all.

That's why yesterday, on this floor, we voted to not just delay the employer mandate, but the individual mandate as well. Everyone, not just businesses, deserve protection from this unworkable law.

First of all, I want to say nice job to Chuck Fleischmann for his comments on his father.

Then, before my colleague from Maryland leaves, I want to make sure that he understands that we understand the history of this whole budget process.

The Nation is $16 trillion in debt. It was the President's proposal to sequester; and it was his vote, along with my vote, that passed the Budget Control Act that enacted sequester. So, many of us are not just going to come to the floor and get lectured to on this process of how do you eventually get control of this national debt.

Sequester is a tough process. It's a tough pill to take. It's the first time we've ever cut real dollars. As I tell my colleagues, in the big picture of a $16 trillion debt, it's pocket lint. It's such a small percentage of our future obligations, and that's where the debate on entitlement programs has to go. It's Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest payment on our debt that, if we don't get control actuarially in the out-years, we will continue to have to cut the discretionary budget, which is damaging to all of those things my colleague mentioned.

Yet for him to come down and profess outrage over a proposal that the President presented to this body and then to profess outrage when he voted for the bill, I think it's just the height of hypocrisy.

That's not what I came down to the floor to talk about, but this gives us an opportunity to respond. I did want to talk about the recent occurrences in Egypt which identify persecution.

The Middle East is a continually changing region. We have had citizens protesting their nondemocratic governments numerous times in calling for change and freedom across the region. In 2012, the world would watch incredible change in Egypt following the election of Mohamed Morsi, when he became the President. This country continues to struggle in instituting a democratic government. However, the work of the Morsi government is not met without opposition, and attacks on minority groups are still an ongoing issue.

In the recent past, Coptic Christians have been persecuted; and on Sunday, June 23, Shiite Muslims were attacked by a mob of Sunni Muslims in the village of Zawyat Abu Musalam. Four Shiites died in this attack, and many others were injured. Shiite Muslims make up roughly 2 percent of the Egyptian population of 80 million people.

While President Morsi has condemned these attacks, further steps need to be taken to address the ongoing persecutions of Egypt's religious minorities. Persecution will continue if sentiments towards minorities are not changed. For Egypt to have a successful, lasting democratic government, people of all religions will need to be included.

The United States was created on the principle that all people should have the right to practice their religions freely and openly and without fear of persecution. As a Christian and as a Member of the House of Representatives, which is composed of a vast array of Members with different beliefs, it is my hope that this country will continue to be an example that Egypt can look to.

I urge the Egyptian Government and the people to continue to condemn these religious-based attacks and to take positive steps towards religious freedom. I will continue to keep the country of Egypt and their religious minorities in my prayers, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of baseball's greatest heroes of all time, St. Louis' Stan Musial. Stan the Man was an unblemished icon both on and off the field.

Musial's historic numbers over his 22 seasons with the St. Louis Cardinals make him one of the greatest to ever play the game. With 3,630 hits, 475 home runs, 1,951 RBIs, and a lifetime .331 batting average, he was one of the most consistent hitters of his era. Musial's performance on the field earned him 24 All-Star appearances, three National League MVP awards, seven National League batting titles, a rightful place in the Hall of Fame, and three World Series championships for Cardinals Nation.

Stan the Man was immortalized in the hearts of Cardinals fans when his No. 6 was retired and his statue was erected outside Busch Stadium with a fitting quote from Baseball Commissioner Ford Frick: ``Here stands baseball's perfect warrior. Here stands baseball's perfect knight.''

But Stan Musial was more than just an example of baseball excellence; he epitomized modest Midwestern values and a devout faith rarely found in today's age of fame and record contracts. When fellow baseball great Ty Cobb compared Musial to other greats and said he was better than Joe DiMaggio, Musial humbly replied: ``Cobb is baseball's greatest. I don't want to contradict him, but I can't say that I was ever as good as Joe DiMaggio.'' Stan Musial lived his faith through his life as a devout Catholic, his charitable work and his devotion to his family, with nearly 72 years of marriage and four children. For his lifetime of work and service, Stan Musial earned the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2011, as Lacy so aptly identified.

It is fitting, as we name the I-70 bridge the ``Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge,'' to remember his service to our Nation as well as that of countless other veterans in the St. Louis area and Cardinals Nation. Like so many other young men and women of his generation, Stan Musial put aside his career when he was drafted into the United States Navy during World War II.

With the passing of Stan Musial, we lost a beacon of our community and our team, but this legislation is a fitting tribute to a player who will always be remembered in the hearts of Cardinals fans as ``the Man.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The Village of Okawville on its 175th Anniversary. The village will celebrate this special jubilee on June 28 and 29, 2013, with a variety of community events, including a soapbox derby, children's parade, live music, and fireworks with the theme, ``Celebrate Okawville.''

The Village of Okawville was founded in 1838 as the Village of Bridgeport and was renamed Okawville in 1870 by a wave of German immigrants. The village became popular for its mineral springs, where many visitors would come to relieve their ailments in the therapeutic waters.

The village is now home to 1,400 residents and still boasts a strong German heritage. Besides the Original Springs Hotel, which offers spa services, the village also is home to the Heritage House Museum sites, which draw tourists to the area today.

I extend my congratulations to The Village of Okawville upon this special occasion. It is my prayer that the Lord blesses them with many more years of extending hospitality.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to come down on the floor to just take a few minutes to talk about energy policy in this country. Republicans on this side and many of my friends across the aisle, we do believe and speak about an all-of-the-above energy strategy. That means ``all of the above.''

First, and the Speaker would not be surprised that I would come down and talk about nuclear power and how that, in the whole line of the processing of the fuel to the electricity production, they are good- paying jobs. There are challenges we have to overcome, which is the high level of nuclear waste, the spent nuclear fuel, and the location for that, because that is a cost burden on the industry until we get that solved as we promised.

Another major important energy production for us is coal. I come from southern Illinois. There are a lot of coal mines there, and electricity is generated by coal. It is low-cost fuel, and it provides great jobs for our coal miners, and it also creates high-paying jobs in rural America for the power plants in remote locations.

The Governor of the State of Illinois just signed what they're claiming to be the most intense and precise fracking bill in the Nation, which will allow us to look for, locate, and recover, through the fracking process, we believe, crude oil to the extent of which we haven't seen since World War II, which also will ease our reliance on imported crude oil.

Also part of this debate is the renewal portfolio debate, and some of that would be wind and solar. But don't forget the agriculture input through the RFS, which would be biodiesel, whether that is by soybeans or by reformulated cooking oil or beef tallow, or the ethanol debate, whether that is a cellulosic, the future generation of ethanol production, or the corn-based ethanol production as it is.

It's a great time in the energy debate in this country because we're now at a point where we are demanding less and producing more, which would allow us then to at least stabilize and hopefully lower our prices while we then continue to become, now, an energy exporter.

We're in a hearing today in the Energy and Power Subcommittee to talk about exporting coal and exporting liquified natural gas. That will be revenue and jobs to this great country. For many of us, we haven't seen times like this in a long time, and it's up to us in the public policy arena to make sure that we don't mess it up by increasing regulatory demands and other hurdles which will inhibit the entrepreneurs and the risk-takers from taking advantage of this great opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

As modern science advances, we are gaining a better understanding of childhood development from conception to birth. While decades ago doctors believed a pre-natal child's central nervous system was too under-developed to experience pain, scientists are now finding that by 20 weeks after conception babies have an ``increase in stress hormones in response to painful experiences.'' In essence, by month 5, children can experience pain.

Many of the abortions conducted by Dr. Gosnell were near and even after the 20th week where the child could feel the pain of what was being done. I stand by the millions of Americans who are deeply shocked and emotionally horrified by the actions of Dr. Kermit Gosnell--the crimes for which he was convicted are too many to mention and too disturbing to describe.

While our hearts go out to Dr. Gosnell's victims, we must also act to prevent future Gosnell's from having the ease and opportunity to perform abortions as he did. That is why I support The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This bill provides national protection to unborn children who are capable of feeling pain by penalizing any doctor who provides a Gosnell-style abortion with up to 5 years in prison and/or up to a $250,000 fine.

Dr. Gosnell's trial and new scientific evidence around pre-natal childhood development has compelled us to re-examine how late-term abortions are conducted and the impact on the unborn child. This legislation will help further reduce the pain and anguish that abortions can cause.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the sesquicentennial of the Centralia Sentinel. For 150 years, the newspaper has chronicled events large and small in and around the southern Illinois town of Centralia. It holds a special place in my heart, as the hometown paper of my namesake and grandfather, John Shimkus. His clothing store advertised for years in the Sentinel.

History tells us that the regional term ``Little Egypt'' arose from the poor harvest of the 1830s. Citizens of the North had to travel south to buy grain, reminiscent of the Biblical story of Joseph being brought ``down to Egypt.'' A visitor walking into the reception area of the Sentinel is greeted with hieroglyphics on the wall, evoking images of an Egyptian tomb. However, those who have worked there know that the Sentinel is anything but tomb-like, frequently noting the family atmosphere, something long promoted by the newspaper's leadership.

I would like to congratulate owner Judith Joy, Publisher and co- owner John Perrine, Associate Publisher Thomas Joy, General Manager Dan Nichols, Senior Editor LuAnn Droege, Lifestyles Editor Michelle Pennington, Sports Editor Mike McManus, Office Manager Julie Copple, Circulation Director Ray Albert, Prepress Supervisor Terri Kelly, Mailroom Manager Cindy Estes, Pressroom Manager Mike Bell, and all associated with the Sentinel now and over the last 15 decades.

Mr. Speaker, I salute the Centralia Sentinel and offer my best wishes for the next 150 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Peter Ford for his extraordinary service to the Nation while serving in the United States Army Reserves and National Guard for the past 32 years.

Lieutenant Colonel Ford started his military career in 1981 as an enlisted Soldier--an infantryman--in the Virginia National Guard. After graduating from Gustavus Adolphus College, where he was the only ROTC Cadet at Gustavus, Lieutenant Colonel Ford was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army Ordinance Corps. After the Officer Basic Course, Lieutenant Colonel Ford in his civilian capacity was sworn in as a Special Agent with the State Department Diplomatic Security Service.

While serving as the Regional Security Officer (RSO) at the embassy in Switzerland, Lieutenant Colonel Ford was assigned as a Military Intelligence Officer at the Military Intelligence Group at the 7th Army Reserve Command in Germany. In 1997, he was called up to support the war in Bosnia. Upon his return to the United States, he joined the Office, Chief of the Army Reserves, as a Reserve Congressional Liaison Officer and also served as a Reservist with the 157th Individual Mobilization Augmentee Detachment.

In 2003, Lieutenant Colonel Ford was assigned as a Congressional Detailee to the Homeland Security Committee and was named Executive Officer of the 157th that same year. After serving as RSO in Armenia, he was detailed to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In the fall of 2007, at the beginning of the ``surge'' in Iraq, Lieutenant Colonel Ford volunteered to serve as an Army Reservist in Iraq. He was attached to the American Embassy in Baghdad and, as the Director of the Office of Hostage Affairs, was responsible for resolving U.S. kidnapping cases in Iraq. Following the completion of his military tour, Peter continued his service in Iraq. For an additional year, he worked as a DSS Agent with the State Department in the same position.

Returning to the U.S., Peter obtained a Masters Degree from the National Defense Intelligence College and joined Prisoner of War/ Missing in Action Affairs as a drilling Reservist. He was subsequently assigned to the Diplomatic Security's Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC). In October 2011, Lieutenant Colonel Ford took command of the 157th Individual Mobilization Augmentee Detachment. During his military and civilian careers, Lieutenant Ford has worked in over 110 countries.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the grateful Nation, I join my colleagues today in saying thank you to Lieutenant Colonel Peter Ford for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to the country throughout his distinguished career in the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, there's good news in our pursuit of a repository to hold our Nation's spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, although it went largely unreported.

Officials from both the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have publicly admitted that neither agency has identified any technical issues that would prevent us from being able to develop a safe repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This admission came during a recent hearing before the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee in response to a question from my friend and colleague, Mr. Frelinghuysen, the subcommittee chairman.

To stakeholders in the nuclear waste debate, this fact should come as no surprise. Why else would Greg Jaczko, Senator Reid's former staffer, abuse his authority as NRC chairman and deceive his Commission colleagues to scuttle publication of the agency's safety review?

If Yucca Mountain were as scientifically flawed as Senator Reid says it is, then he would have benefited by having the agency's conclusions released publicly. Instead, Senator Reid got a promise from President Obama to shut down the program.

President Obama obliged, with no basis other than the cryptic statements about Yucca Mountain being ``unworkable.'' Meanwhile, Senator Reid's protege, Mr. Jaczko, made sure the NRC's independent technical conclusions never saw the light of day.

These actions have been challenged in court. The State attorneys general for both Washington and South Carolina, together with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Aiken County, South Carolina, and Nye County, Nevada, have all alleged that the NRC has violated the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by ceasing its review of the Yucca Mountain license application, which is mandated under the law. The case is currently before the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.

When President Obama took office, he said that this administration would ``restore scientific integrity in government decisionmaking.''

Shortly after taking office, he issued a Presidential Memorandum stating:

Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific

or technological findings and conclusions. If scientific and

technological information is developed and used by the

Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to

the public.

Except for information that is properly restricted from

disclosure, each agency should make available to the public

the scientific and technical findings or conclusions

considered or relied upon in policy decisions.

The public must be confident that public officials will not

conceal or distort the scientific findings that are relevant

to policy choices.

He reaffirmed these statements recently when addressing the National Academies of Science:

In all the sciences, we've got to make sure that we are

supporting the idea that they're not subject to politics,

that they're not skewed by an agenda, that, as I said before,

we make sure that we go where the evidence leads us.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to reconcile these pronouncements with the Yucca Mountain situation as it stands today. Electricity consumers and taxpayers have invested $15 billion to find a safe disposal site for our Nation's civilian spent fuel and the nuclear waste left over from the Cold War. After investing 30 years and $15 billion in Yucca Mountain, they deserve, at a minimum, for the independent nuclear safety regulator, the NRC, to release its conclusions on whether the site is safe or not.

Given the admissions from these DOE and NRC officials, it appears we have found a safe solution to our Nation's nuclear waste problem: Yucca Mountain. The bad news is that this administration would rather play politics

than solve the problem. Transparency and scientific integrity should not be debased into political buzz words easily cast aside for the sake of political favors.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They deserve to know the truth about Yucca Mountain. It's outrageous that they must go to court to get it.

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague who just spoke, I say she's going to have an opportunity with voting on the Keystone XL bill to address the jobs issue this week.

But let me talk about this most recent IRS scandal. I have a local, well-respected attorney named Tad Armstrong in my district, who founded the Constitution study group called Earn It, Learn It or Lose It.

He applied for a tax-exempt status in August of 2010. In October of 2010, Cincinnati headquarters called with a lot of questions. It wasn't until October of 2011 that he received an 11-page rejection letter.

He hired an accountant to try to appeal. He told the accountant that his appeal was probably denied because he was teaching about the Constitution. She laughed at that. But after this most recent IRS story broke, she called back and said, ``My goodness, you are right.''

I quote Tad in saying: ``Here you have Jay Carney saying the President is a staunch defender of the First Amendment. I can't help but be reminded several times the President saying the Constitution is outdated and gets in his way.''