Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

I have one more, plus I will be closing.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on all sides?

I now would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, is the chairman prepared to close?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

On the House floor today, we are considering three trade agreements: the FTA with Korea, which manipulates its currency; the FTA with Colombia, the labor unionist murder capital of the world; and the FTA with Panama, which has one of the smallest populations in Latin America.

At a time of 9 percent unemployment, why are we even considering these trade agreements? We should not be advancing the failed NAFTA- style trade policy when millions of Americans are still out of work. Instead, we should be considering legislation that will create jobs here at home.

The American people were pretty clear in 2008 when they voted for hope and change, and they were even clearer in 2010 when they voted in a new generation of lawmakers to set Washington straight. Both times, Americans voted against the inside-the-beltway perspective and for Representatives and a President they thought would take the country in a different direction. Both times, despite these signals from the American people, the White House and Congress have ignored them, and Washington remains as beholden to Wall Street and as detached from Main Street as ever.

In a poll done by NBC and the Wall Street Journal last year, the majority of Americans said that they thought the FTAs had been bad for the country. Given that they're so unpopular, why on Earth would the President send these agreements up to Congress right now? Well, you only have to look at the President's economic advisers to find out.

Since elected, the President has surrounded himself with advisers from Wall Street banks, with CEOs from companies that don't pay taxes, and with staffers who pushed the NAFTA-style trade agreement under Clinton. Those advisers don't bring fresh perspectives to the White House. They bring more of the same corporate priorities that have caused the current and previous White House administrations to turn a blind eye while the big banks played roulette with our pensions and mortgages and then asked for a taxpayer bailout.

The Panama free trade agreement is another example of Washington's corporate priorities. Panama's GDP is about $25 billion. That's about the same GDP as the city of Portland, Maine. The entire country has a population of 3.4 million. We have three times as many people in the United States on unemployment lists alone. And this agreement does nothing for those 14 million Americans without jobs.

Panama simply isn't a significant market opportunity for U.S. exports, and this FTA won't do anything to reduce our 9 percent unemployment. But the big companies and the big banks want it, so President Obama is going to give in to the Washington elites once again.

The working people and the middle class don't want these trade agreements--not with Panama, not with Korea, and not with Colombia. They want good-paying jobs that allow them to provide for their families. They want a government to pass laws to help get the economy going again. They don't want another NAFTA-style trade agreement, and they definitely don't want any more Wall Street-centric, beltway-based policies from the White House or Congress. They want Washington to wake up and they want the hope and change that they voted for. How much clearer could the American people be? They want policies written by citizens, not by chief executives. They want leaders to listen to town halls, not wealthy tycoons. They want change, not more of the same.

I call on my colleagues who were sent here in 2010 with a mandate of change to work with me. Vote against these trade deals, which will cost us more than $7 billion. I call on my colleagues on the Democratic side to remember we have always been the party of the working people. We must vote against these NAFTA-style trade agreements. These agreements are unjust to the American people.

I urge a ``no'' vote on all three of these trade agreements.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

In response to the two previous speakers, I just want to highlight at this time the lunch bucket that I carried with me for over 29 years at Great Northern Paper Company in the mill. The Korea free trade agreement is bad for the workers who carry a lunch bucket similar to this.

At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Madam Speaker, the Korea trade agreement is bad for workers who carry a lunch bucket like this one.

At this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Thank you.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has fought harder and longer for fair trade than any Member I have served with.

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

I rise today as a former mill worker who punched a time clock for over 29 years at the Great Northern Paper Company in East Millinocket, Maine. What I've seen firsthand is the devastation that these free trade agreements can do to our communities.

This agreement is the most economically significant since NAFTA, and its consequences for America's middle class will be enormous. Since NAFTA, we have lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs. We've seen more than 50,000 factories close in the last 10 years alone. The Korea FTA will bring more of the same. It will cost us more manufacturing jobs, it will shut down more factories, and it will ship more jobs overseas, all at a time of 9 percent unemployment when the American middle class can least afford it.

My colleagues have already highlighted the many reasons to oppose the Korea FTA, but I want to highlight two of those issues again. First, it does nothing to protect the U.S. in the face of Korea's currency manipulation. Second, this agreement isn't just a giveaway to Korea; it's also a giveaway to China.

Korea has a history of manipulating its currency to boost its exports. Once in 1988 and twice in 1989, the U.S.

Treasury Department officially labeled Korea a currency manipulator. Even though the Treasury stopped officially identifying currency manipulators, in their February and May report of 2011 they stated explicitly, ``Korea should adopt a greater degree of exchange rate flexibility and less intervention.''

The International Monetary Fund agrees. In August of this year, the IMF stated that the won was undervalued by 5 to 20 percent. The fact is, Korea manipulates its currency. Our own Treasury Department recognizes it. But the FTA does nothing to protect American businesses and workers from it.

You only have to look at Mexico's 1994 devaluation of the peso to see how effectively an undervalued currency can wipe out an FTA's benefits. Our trade balance with Mexico has never been positive since.

Without a provision to protect us from the won undervaluation, Korea's exports will continue to be cheaper than our own exports. This Korean advantage will wipe out the FTA's tariff benefits for American companies and cost American workers their jobs.

Candidate Barack Obama recognized this threat, claiming that as President he would ``insist that our trade deals include prohibition against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation.'' But this FTA includes no such prohibition at all.

And, second, this agreement is not just good for Korea; it's great for China too. Today, we're actually voting on an FTA that will be an outright boon for China's auto parts sector. The agreement's rules of origin require that only 35 percent of the car's content value come from Korea or the U.S.

We have two FTAs with car-producing countries: NAFTA and the Australia FTA. In the Australia FTA, the content requirements are 50 percent. And in the NAFTA, the content requirements are 62.5 percent. Korea's car production in 2010 was almost equal to that of Canada's and Mexico's combined; yet the Korea FTA content requirements are much lower than NAFTA's. By allowing 65 percent of a car's content value to come from a third country, we're opening the door for that 65 percent to come from--guess who--China. As a result, these rules of origin will be devastating to the American auto parts industry.

The U.S. auto supply chain is already facing challenges from China. According to the Commerce Department 2010 report titled, ``On the Road,'' China auto parts exports to the U.S. have increased 43 percent from 2004 to 2009, and they're expected to account for an increased share of U.S. automotive parts in the future. In fact, Commerce predicts that many auto parts companies will continue to move production to China in an effort to reduce costs and remain competitive. If this FTA passes, that's not a prediction; that's a guarantee.

I've already mentioned the fact that we have lost more than 50,000 factories since 2001. Before voting today, I urge you to imagine how many more factories will close if we are to pass this agreement, and to think about the devastation that will be brought to those towns when that happens.

I oppose it because it will devastate our manufacturing sector at a time when we need to rebuild it. I oppose it because this President promised hope and change, not more of the same. I oppose it because in my home town, unemployment is more than 28 percent. I oppose it because I want to create jobs in the United States, not South Korea, and definitely not in China.

As a former mill worker from East Millinocket and on behalf of America's middle class, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Korea FTA agreement.

I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the AFL-CIO in opposition to all three free trade agreements.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, July 7, 2011.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I write to

urge you to oppose the proposed trade agreements with

Colombia, Korea and Panama. Working people, in the U.S. and

around the world, are bearing the brunt of decades of flawed

trade policy. We need Congress and the White House to focus

on creating the millions of good jobs at home that we so

desperately need--not passing more flawed trade deals. These

trade agreements, negotiated by the Bush Administration,

incorporate too many of the disastrous policies of the past,

rather than laying out a new and progressive vision for the

future.

Instead of using valuable time and effort advancing these

flawed agreements, Congress should instead focus on effective

job creation measures, including currency rebalancing and

enforcing existing trade laws. We need to invest in a modern,

functional infrastructure; in a high-tech, high-skilled

workforce; and in clean renewable energy. It is time to

update our trade model for the 21st century so that it

strengthens labor rights protections for all workers,

safeguards domestic laws and regulations, and promotes the

export of U.S. goods rather than jobs.

I yield to the Congresswoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield to the Congresswoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield to the Congressman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield to the Congresswoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. PINGREE of Maine asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield to the Representative from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield to the Congresswoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield to the Congresswoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

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

I thank Ranking Member, Filner for yielding.

As my colleagues have stated, our veterans' safety should be one of our

top priorities, and the Veterans Sexual Assault Prevention and Health Care Enhancement Act does just that.

I would like to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Bob Filner, the chair of the subcommittee, as well as all of my colleagues on the House Veterans Affairs' Committee, for working in such a bipartisan manner to get this very important health care bill to the floor.

Within H.R. 2074, I would like to highlight two important provisions, and you heard the chairwoman explain the bill very eloquently.

The first provision I would like to highlight is section 2, which was offered by the chair of the Subcommittee on Health, Ms. Buerkle. The provision will correct the troubling findings in a GAO report. The report essentially found that veterans and employees were exposed to personal dangers, including sexual assault. This is simply unacceptable, and I want to thank the subcommittee chair for offering this bill to us.

The second provision I would like to highlight is in section 3, my provision of the bill. Section 3 would provide much needed flexibility in the way the State veterans' homes get reimbursed for the care they provide to veterans who need that care for a service-connected condition or a service-connected condition of 70 percent or greater. This will ensure that these veterans are not put out on the streets.

The Subcommittee on Health has been working on this bill for well over 2 years, and now I am finally pleased to see that this bill is moving forward. Hopefully, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this very important piece of legislation as we have to do all that we can to help our veterans and their families. This bill is one that takes a different approach to dealing with our veterans and their problems.

I want to thank my friend for yielding to me.

This rule makes in order three NAFTA-style free trade agreements, one with Korea, one with Panama, and one with Colombia, all of which I oppose. But I want to focus my remarks today on the trade agreement with Colombia because it hits so close to home for me.

You will hear from Members that feel passionately about Colombia from their experience in that country. They support the free trade agreement, and I respect their perspectives. But there are some of us who feel just as passionately about our brothers and sisters who are killed in Colombia just because they are members of a union, and we oppose the agreement.

I am a proud, card-carrying member of the United Steelworkers Union. I've been a member of the union for over 39 years and served as vice president of Local 152. Workers in Colombia are being killed for the exact same thing.

Since January, 23 unionists have been assassinated. Fifty-one were killed last year, more than the rest of the world combined. Just for carrying a union card like mine, nearly 3,000 workers have been killed in Colombia over the past 25 years.

The administration's Labor Action Plan is intended to address some of the decades-old problems of violence against unionists and the lack of impunity for their perpetrators, but it falls far short from doing so:

First, there has not been meaningful collaboration with the Colombian unions to make sure the action plan is being implemented thoroughly;

Second, the Attorney General's office, according to Human Rights Watch, hasn't made any progress in investigating the murder cases over the last 4 years. Ensuring that murder investigations are conducted and completed and the real killers are brought to justice is a critical component of protecting our union brothers and sisters in Colombia. So far, the government hasn't done it; and

Third, employers continue to force workers into collective pacts so they cannot form unions.

By passing this FTA, Congress is blessing this lack of rights and this longstanding trend of violence. We are choosing to stand in solidarity with a government that can't protect its own people instead of the people who need the protecting.

I urge my colleagues to think about the fact that if they had a card like this and if they were a leader in a union in Colombia, they would be a target. We should not reward this country's disregard for basic rights within an FTA.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the Colombian free trade agreement.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I would now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a leader of the China currency manipulation legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Maine Army National Guard Military Funeral Honors Program. The Maine Army National Guard Military Funeral Honors Program offers the military honors that are now an entitlement to all honorably discharged veterans.

The rendering of Military Funeral Honors is a way to show the Nation's deep gratitude to those who, in times of war and peace, have faithfully defended our country. This ceremonial paying of respect is the final demonstration a grateful Nation can provide to the veterans' families.

Established in 2003, the Maine Army National Guard Military Funeral Honors Program serves the veterans of Maine with honor and respect. The soldiers who make up the Funeral Honors Program are of the highest caliber that Maine has to offer and deserve our recognition.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking the Maine Army National Guard Military Funeral Honors Program for their outstanding service for Maine's veterans and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and accomplishments of John Patrick Carr, Jr. of York, Maine.

John Carr, Jr. was a truly dedicated family man, a strong community advocate and a friend. John began his career working with the New England Telephone Company and moved on to become the International Representative for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. He remained a longtime member of the IBEW Local 2222.

Following his retirement, John and his wife, Joan, relocated to York, Maine in order to live closer to family and enjoy time with their children and many grandchildren, of which they now have 12. Never one to stay on the sidelines, John became very active as an advocate for senior citizens throughout the State of Maine.

He served as the President of the Maine Council of Senior Citizens for upwards of 10 years, during which time he made a tremendous impact on his community and his state. He fought hard for affordable healthcare for senior citizens and to educate lawmakers on the full impact of numerous pieces of legislation on his community. He also served as a dedicated and active member of the York County Democratic Committee.

I always enjoyed my opportunities to work with John; he had a passion for his work and for the people on whose behalf he advocated. John will be missed by many, but I know that his contributions to the state of Maine are a lasting legacy.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring John Patrick Carr, Jr. for his life of dedication and service to his community, his family and to the State of Maine.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the accomplishments of Steve Levesque of Maine.

The National Association of Defense Communities has honored Mr. Levesque with its 2011 Base Redevelopment Leadership Award for his hard work on behalf of Brunswick, Maine and the surrounding communities. This award recognizes Mr. Levesque as the country's best base redevelopment official for his work in leading the conversion of Brunswick Naval Air Station for civilian reuse by the Mid-coast Regional Redevelopment Authority.

Steve serves as the executive director of the Mid-coast Regional Redevelopment Authority and has been charged with overseeing reuse of the 3,200-acre former air station, which closed as a military installation on May 31.

Recipients of the Base Redevelopment Leadership Award exhibit leadership abilities that not only enhance the success of their project, but provide management, direction and vision to building an effective and thriving community redevelopment program. The recipient must have proven success in achieving the ongoing goals of the redevelopment plan and creating a successful economic development plan. Steve has met and surpassed these qualifications with his work on the Brunswick Naval Air Station transition.

I am confident that Steve will carry on his track record of excellence in his continued role with the Mid-Coast Region Redevelopment Authority working on the reuse of the Brunswick Naval Air Station. Steve has left a lasting mark on this region and the state of Maine. On behalf of the people of Maine, it is with pride that I congratulate Steve for his excellent work.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Steven Levesque on the receipt of this award, and in thanking him for his dedication to the state of Maine.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Gretchen Kimball and Annette Caldwell for receiving the 2011 ``Maine Agriculture in the Classroom'' Teacher of the Year award and for receiving one of the five ``Excellence in Teaching about Agriculture'' awards from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and the National Agriculture in the Classroom Consortium.

Gretchen and Annette created the Buckfield Garden Project at Buckfield Junior/Senior High School in Buckfield, ME. The project is a 1.2-acre garden and farm stand run by the teachers' middle school students. The students research and plan which plants to include in the garden, and every step of the process, from soil cultivation to managing the budget, involves student participation. The project teaches the students agricultural, business and problem solving skills.

The Buckfield Garden Project has become a point of pride for the entire community, not just the students. In the project's first harvest, the students earned $3,500. The students elected to donate this money to a local family struggling with severe medical hardship. Through Gretchen and Annette's unique and innovative approach to education, these students are learning practical skills as well as making valuable connections with their community.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating Gretchen Kimball and Annette Caldwell's achievement in receiving these awards.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sister Mary Norberta, who will retire this year after 29 years of leadership at St. Joseph Healthcare in Bangor. Since 1982, Sister Norberta has guided St. Joseph Hospital and St. Joseph Healthcare as a dynamic President and Chief Executive Officer.

As President and C.E.O. of St. Joseph Hospital, Sister Norberta has been instrumental in transforming a once small community hospital into the largest facility in the state of Maine. Not only has she introduced modern ideas to the hospital such as digital mammography, laparoscopic surgery, lithotripter service and the allowance of fathers in the delivery room, but she has also expanded primary care services in rural areas, helped to organize small community hospitals in Maine and completed thousands of hours of community service.

Sister Norberta is the recent recipient of the Woman of the Year Award for the state of Maine, bestowed upon her by the Business and Professional Women's organization. The Woman of the Year Award is given to a woman who exemplifies a character of drive, innovation and compassion in the workforce. Sister Norberta more than meets these standards.

Earlier this year, she was also recognized with the lifetime achievement award from the Honor Society of Nursing due to her longtime work in nursing leadership and education at the local, state, and federal levels. In tribute to Sister Norberta's upcoming retirement, the chapter has established an annual scholarship in her name.

After a career devoted to strengthening health care institutions, providing the highest level quality of care for patients and supporting the most vulnerable in the state of Maine, Sister Norberta is, without doubt, deserving of her recent awards and honors. Upon her retirement from St. Joseph's, she will truly be missed for her leadership skills and kindness.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in thanking Sister Mary Norberta for her tremendous contributions and service to her community and to the people of Maine.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this final amendment today for two reasons. First, to improve the bill one last time before we vote on final passage. And second, to provide Congress an opportunity to come together on an issue that all of us can agree on: protecting our seniors.

In the last 8 years that I have been a Member of Congress, I have had the opportunity to work with Republicans and Democrats alike to ensure that older Americans have the security and the quality of life that they deserve.

I am hopeful my amendment today will present another chance for my friends on both sides of the aisle to vote for something because it is good policy, regardless of our different politics.

This final amendment would ensure that nothing will prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from issuing rules or regulations that protect our seniors.

Specifically it makes sure that the bureau is fully able to protect seniors' Social Security and Medicare benefits, mortgages, pensions, and other retirement savings from fraud.

In my State of Maine, seniors are frequent targets of predatory practices intended to cheat them out of their money. Our Republican Governor Paul LePage recognized this disturbing reality when he announced new efforts to guard seniors from these scams just last month on Elder Abuse Awareness Day. The governor's efforts and my amendment are badly needed to protect our seniors. A 2010 survey of 7.3 million older Americans found that one out of every five citizens over the age of 65 has been a victim of a fraudulent scheme.

Even more are at risk of becoming victims, 37 percent of seniors are currently being contacted by people calling them asking for money, lotteries, and other scams.

I think we all can agree that Congress needs to act now to stop people from preying on seniors' finances and to protect their Medicare and Social Security benefits from scams. My final amendment to this bill will do just that.

I want to highlight two stories of fraud targeted at older Americans in my State of Maine. These heartbreaking examples show why it is so important for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be able to protect our seniors.

Carolyn and Ray Thompson live in Brewer, Maine. And like many Mainers, they are big advocates of green energy and like a good opportunity when they see one. So when they heard from their friends about a man who owned a patent for a new form of windmill technology and was looking for investors, Carolyn and Ray were excited about the possibility of investing in windmill projects. So they did invest, to the tune of $30,000, thinking they were putting their money in an investment that would provide a secure future for their children.

But on a trip to view the windmill technology, they were not impressed by what they saw and became suspicious. Their suspicions were justified, and the opportunity proved to be a scam that took tens of thousands of dollars of their savings. Thankfully, the scammer was convicted of fraud earlier this month, but the Thompsons are unlikely to get their money back.

The second story is about Lucianne, a retired teacher from Caribou, Maine, who passed away last year from breast cancer. Three years before she died, she met with an insurance agent from Maine who took advantage of her age and repeatedly gave her bad financial advice for his financial gain. He convinced her to buy and finance a snowmobile for him to use. He got her to buy a long-term life insurance policy that she couldn't afford. And he advised her to cash out some of her stock portfolio to make financial expenditures that were bad and that really caused her Medicare premiums to skyrocket.

Lucianne passed away in November and did not live to see the agent lose his license. But her story lives on today as compelling evidence that Congress needs to protect our seniors from fraud.

So I ask my colleagues to join me today to support my amendment. We all have constituents like Lucianne and like Mr. and Mrs. Thompson.

This final amendment will not prevent this bill from moving forward. If it is adopted, it will simply be incorporated into the bill, and the bill will be immediately voted on.

I offer this final amendment today to protect our seniors, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting it. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this final amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition of the McClintock amendment to H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2012.

This amendment would eliminate regional economic development commissions, and I believe that it comes at exactly the wrong time for thousands of communities throughout the United States.

Regional development commissions have a successful track record of spurring much needed investment into the economic development of distressed communities. They should be preserved and expanded, not eliminated.

One of these commissions directly contributes to the economy in my home State of Maine. The Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC, is charged with investing in the economic development of the most distressed areas of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and northern New York.

By working directly with each state and existing economic development districts, the NBRC is in a unique position to address our region's shared challenges and obstacles in a coordinated way that cuts across state lines.

Since fiscal year 2010, the NBRC has been funded at $1.5 million. Despite these limited resources, it has already awarded $1.3 million to meaningful projects throughout the region.

For example, last September, the NBRC made its first investments in Maine, including an expansion of the Port of Eastport, which is part of a project that will result in the retention of 18 jobs and the creation of 26 new ones.

The NBRC is now preparing to accept applications for a second round of projects, which will spur additional investment and job creation through our region.

If Congress eliminates funding for the NBRC, it cannot build on the progress that has already been made. The NBRC and other commissions like it would not be able to continue their mission of creating and protecting job opportunities in some of the most economically disadvantaged parts of our country.

Madam Chair, during tough economic times it is unacceptable to shut down these commissions, which share a common mission of partnering with states and local communities to create jobs and further economic development.

I urge my colleagues to reject the McClintock amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize those who travel around the country with the National 9/11 Flag.

During the cleanup of the World Trade Center disaster, a large tattered flag was pulled from the rubble. It was brought by the New York Says Thank You organization to Greensburg, Kansas, a city recovering from a devastating tornado. Volunteers from New York, along with Greensburg residents, began stitching the flag back together with flags recovered from the Greensburg tornado.

The flag now serves as a symbol of American resilience and compassion. It is carried around our country by a core group of volunteers. These patriotic men and women sacrifice their time and travel at their own expense to bring this great flag to millions throughout our Nation. Over 160 million Americans have seen the flag in person or on television. The flag is brought to public events, town gatherings and cultural and sporting events. At these venues, American citizens can share their national pride, even adding stitches to the flag itself. Once completed, the flag will become part of the National September 11th Memorial Museum being built at the World Trade Center.

On March 29, 2011, the National 9/11 Flag was brought to the York Beach, Maine Fire Department. Alongside FDNY firefighters, local service heroes stitched a patch onto the flag. Through their participation, these remarkable men and women add to the American story, honoring their colleagues and country in an historic stitching ceremony. The volunteers who travel with the flag and the local community partners make these events of honor possible.

Mr. Speaker, please join me again in recognizing the men and women who participate in the restoration of the National 9/11 Flag.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Shanna Rogers for being awarded the Geneva Kirk Award by the United Way Foundation of Androscoggin.

The Geneva Kirk Award is given annually by United Way of Androscoggin to individuals who have exemplified exceptional volunteerism and service to their community. This award honors the memory of Miss Geneva Kirk who dedicated her life to serving and teaching others, volunteering in a multitude of ways throughout her community.

Shanna was nominated by Androscoggin Head Start not only for her innumerable hours of community service to Head Start, but also for her involvement in many other organizations. Shanna works part time for the Neighborhood Housing League and part time at Marche's Restaurant. In her work with the Neighborhood Housing League, Shanna acts as an advocate for safe and affordable housing and as a mentor for tenants in the downtown area.

Her tireless work with Androscoggin Head Start and Child Care, the Neighborhood Housing League, the Women's Wisdom Center and the Visible Community demonstrates a commitment to her neighbors that would have made Geneva proud.

I am extremely honored to congratulate Shanna Rogers for receiving the Geneva Kirk Award.

Mr. Speaker, please join me again in recognizing Shanna Rogers for her hard work within her community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the families who petitioned the General Court in Boston on February 16, 1811, to incorporate the town of Exeter in the state of Maine. On July 23, 2011, Exeter officially celebrates its bicentennial.

At the time of the 1810 Census, Exeter was home to 140 people comprising 40 different families. Working together to settle and clear the land, a thriving community was established. In only the second official town meeting, the community voted to raise $200 for the purpose of building schools. The town went on to become famous for its apple orchards and its saw and grist mills, as well as the Exeter Fair, which occurred every September from 1867 to 1950, drawing families from all over New England.

Today, the people of Exeter celebrate the bicentennial of their town filled with the same local spirit and sense of common purpose that filled the founding 40 families as they petitioned to have their community recognized. These individuals embody the hardworking people of Maine who throughout our history have embraced the challenges and opportunities of living in our state.

It is an honor and a privilege to represent the people of Exeter, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to help this community celebrate its 200th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in wishing all the citizens of Exeter well on this joyous occasion.