Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 51, the Grijalva Amendment No. 1, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Labrador

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 357, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013, a bill introduced by my friend, Representative Jeff Miller, chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

I wish to highlight section 13, which includes H.R. 1792, the Infectious Disease Reporting Act, a bill introduced by my friend, Representative Mike Coffman, chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The Infectious Disease Reporting Act is a bill that I am proud to cosponsor.

This commonsense provision is necessary to respond to infectious disease issues at VA facilities nationwide, including the deadly outbreak of Legionnaires' Disease at the Pittsburgh VA in

2011 and 2012 that killed at least five of our veterans and sickened as many as 22. This facility became ground zero for the Veterans' Affairs Committee's investigation, which found gross mismanagement by the Pittsburgh VA in response to the 2011 outbreak. This is particularly troubling to me as there are many veterans in my district who rely on the Pittsburgh VA for their health care.

Currently, the VA facilities are not required by law to report infectious disease at VA facilities to State and local health officials, even though the VA is one of the Nation's largest health providers; yet, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center--it is only a few hundred feet away--is required to do this.

This inconsistency makes absolutely no sense and leaves the VA off the hook. In other words, this bill holds VA facilities accountable to the same standards as other medical facilities located in the same State. This just makes sense.

Now, our veterans, who have sacrificed so much, deserve far better. This bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that veterans receive safe, high quality health care at the VA. I urge strong support of H.R. 357.

Madam Speaker, this is appalling that we are even at this point in talking about this providing health care for women. I am really shocked. If we are not providing the best possible medical help for expectant mothers and their unborn child, that is not the issue.

This country has always been the champion of life around the world, protecting human rights. We have always showed up at every single encounter, whenever people were being treated in a way that we thought was not right.

We worry about Syria and the fact that they are losing their citizens, that Assad is killing their citizens. Yet, since 1973, we have aborted 56 million unborn children, 56 million unborn children.

And today we are having a discussion on H.R. 7, where the only thing the American taxpayers are saying, we know, by law, a woman can make that choice, but we also know that taxpayers don't want to fund it.

It is appalling that we have to have this type of a discussion in the United States of America when you know how we feel in our hearts and in our souls. You know how people feel about this.

I want you to think about those 56 million unborn children who could have made a huge difference in this world. It is absolutely appalling to sit in this great room where so many great debates over the protection of human rights and freedom and liberty have taken placer and to be having this discussion.

This has nothing to do with us cutting back on women's health care. It has to do with taxpayers not wanting to fund an abortion. This is what we are talking about.

Please--and as the gentleman just said--is it about the next election? Really?

Have we reduced ourselves to only winning elections and not winning on behalf of people's rights?

These are human rights. I appreciate the time to come to speak.

Madam Speaker, I have got to tell you, this is one of the most disturbing things that we face in the country today, and I want our people to think about this: 56 million children have been aborted.

If we can't wake up and smell the roses on this, then shame on us.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my good friend and fellow Representative from Pennsylvania, Lou Barletta, for introducing this legislation that is so vital to the safety of millions of people across our state and our country.

Merriam-Webster defines a volunteer as ``a person who does work without getting paid to do it.'' It defines an employee as ``a person who works for another person or company for wages or salary.'' Yet the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), defying these clear definitions and common sense, considers volunteer firefighters to be employees and has not clarified whether or not they are subject to the employer mandate under President Obama's health care law.

In Butler Township, back home in Western Pennsylvania, more than 17,000 people rely on approximately 130 volunteer firefighters to keep that community safe. Ed Kirkwood, the manager of Butler Township, has stated that by his calculations, taxes in Butler Township would have to be more than doubled to comply with the federal mandate and maintain all of Butler's volunteer firefighters.

I've spoken time and again about how the unintended consequences of the president's health care law will hurt Americans. In this particular instance, it threatens to bankrupt communities and endanger the public all because the IRS doesn't know the meaning of what it is to be a volunteer firefighter. This is unacceptable. It must be changed, and Mr. Barletta's bill, H.R. 3685--the Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act--will do just that. I give my emphatic support to this bill and ask that the IRS correct its definition of volunteerism before Pennsylvania communities which rely on these heroes have to pay for its lack of common sense.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually a new car dealer and have been a new car dealer for many, many years, since 1970, at a store my dad started in 1953 after coming back from the war. So I have got to tell you, it used to be so easy to deliver a car to a customer, and the excitement about getting that new car was just one of the biggest things a family could do. They would come into the showroom, and they were so excited about taking delivery of a new car, being able to drive off that lot, drive around America, do whatever they wanted to do.

And the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters) referred to dealers in the community. I can tell you, if you really want to know the significance of new car dealers, go to any town anywhere in this country and look at the outfield fence where Little Leagues play. Open up any program to any high school performance and see who the sponsors are. Look at any of the fundraising opportunities that take place in each community, and you will find that it is the automobile dealers who are there first and foremost and are always there. That is just what we do.

In addition to providing good transportation, we support our communities. We hire people. We allow people to work in our communities. They do great things in our communities.

Now, when we talk about H.R. 724, the question becomes then, Why do we continue to layer time after time, paper after paper on somebody just trying to take delivery of a new car? In a recent survey, the number one thing that consumers don't like about buying a car is the paperwork. It is endless.

When I first started in 1969 selling cars, all you had to do was sign the retail order form and sign the temporary registration and send it in. Well, now we have volumes of papers that must be signed. They not only have to sign that they agree to something; they have to sign that they agree not to do something, and that it was offered to somebody else and to them also. So this full declaration has gotten crazy.

And when it comes to the Clean Air Act, I can take anybody out in the lot. In fact, we can go out in the street right now. Open the hood of your car. There is a sticker underneath that says exactly what that vehicle performs like, and how does it meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. It is there. On the manufacturer's statement of origin, when customers take delivery of a car, they sign that certificate.

This just makes so much sense. At a time when America looks at this institution and says why don't you just work together to get rid of some of this overregulation, this overburdensome, adding cost to almost everything that we do, we can do it.

I appreciate what Mr. Latta has done and what Mr. Peters has done. There are over 105 of us that sit right here in this room that agree it needs to be done right now. So let's not hold that up. Let's make sure that we simplify it and make it easier for people to go ahead and take delivery of their new car. It takes away cost, and adds that money which we don't spend back into the communities. It could go back into building our businesses. It could go back into rebuilding America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 3350.

This is a piece of legislation that protects the people, not a political party, not politicians, not Presidents who don't keep promises.

This is a letter I got from Melissa and Riley from Hermitage, Pennsylvania. Riley is a college student paying for her own education. She is working part time at minimum wage in a local grocery store, paying for what she calls an affordable $70 per month for her health care coverage. Because of the Affordable Care Act, her hours at the store have been cut back, and now, to add insult to injury, she has been notified by the insurance provider that because of ObamaCare, she will be canceled after another year and that she is going to be forced to choose a plan that costs triple what she is paying now.

Riley's mom, Melissa, also sent a letter to our office, a letter of desperation stating that her health insurance provider, the one she has always relied on, has now informed her that she will no longer be covered after November 25. In her letter to our office, Melissa writes:

When my daughter or I purchase our own health care in an

attempt to be self-sufficient in this country, we are

penalized, not rewarded.

Mr. President, keep your promise. I can't believe for 3 years we have told people you can keep these policies, you don't have to worry about it, period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period.

Now we find out that it was all just talk, and that is what this country is fed up with. They are tired of the talk that comes out of Washington. They want to have people start representing them. That is what we are here to do. Both sides of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen, both sides of the aisle. It is time to stop the spin.

I really feel sorry for the people who sit in the gallery here. We need to put seatbelts in. This room is spinning so fast sometimes, it is hard for them to walk straight when they walk out of here.

I tell you what. Our party will continue to commit ourselves to doing what is right for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the truth hurts, and for a quarter of a million Pennsylvanians, the truth really hurts because they are losing their health care plans.

Mike McKean and his father own and operate Titan Tool Company. It is a small business in Fairview, Pennsylvania, that their family has run since 1920. In his letter to our office, Michael wrote:

My dad has always prided himself of offering 100 percent

health care coverage for every single one of our associates.

It has been this way for as long as I can remember.

However, under ObamaCare, their yearly premium will rise 113.9 percent, taking the cost from $120,000 to $227,000. One of his employees will see her monthly premium go from just over $300 to $940. That is a 249 percent increase.

In Michael's words:

This type of increase is too much for the company to

weather. Next year, for the first time in decades, my father

and my family are forced to drop insurance coverage for our

employees.

He also added:

Being the generous and concerned person my father is, he

said he would give each employee this year's cost of premiums

to offset the rise in costs, but beyond that, he cannot

afford to do any more. This means that, next December, we

will all have to pay enormous increases out of our pocket for

poorer coverage.

That happens to be the truth, and not one that they have to go back on later on.

First, I do want to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and also Representative McCollum.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment is on the Asian carp. It is a very invasive species that really has a devastating effect on the Upper Mississippi River and the Ohio River Basin. This is a fish that can grow to 70 to 100 pounds. It is a voracious fish that is highly invasive. It can potentially destroy a $7 billion commercial fishing business industry in the Great Lakes. It also would have a devastating effect on commercial boaters, recreational boaters, and sportsmen.

Again, I want you to understand that the nature of this fish is incredible. Anytime the surface of the water is disturbed, it leaps out of the water. As I said, it can be 70 to 100 pounds. I know that many of us do boating in the summertime and have little children that boat with us. This is a fish that is so aggressive and so voracious that it

can eat sometimes up to four times its own weight.

What does this fish do? It eats everything that other fish eat. If we allow this to come forward, it can be devastating.

This is a great example. I watched the last 3 weeks as both sides tried to get to some type of agreement, and couldn't get there. This is a bipartisan effort, a collective effort, collaborative effort, that allows both the States and the Federal agencies to work together on a solution to a problem that has been in existence and will continue to be in existence until we stop it.

So I want to again thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and especially Ms. McCollum as we work together on this piece of legislation. I think it will have a great effect on our ability to keep the Great Lakes, the Upper Mississippi River, and the Ohio River Basin safe.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, I was elected-- and so were a lot of my classmates--in what we termed a very fair election. I think the issue that we all need to be concerned about right now is that it is truly unique in America that everybody is treated fairly. It doesn't matter what the color of your skin is; it doesn't matter how you worship; it doesn't matter if you even worship or don't worship--you are treated fairly. The President has said many times that this is a country in which everybody deserves a fair shot, in which everybody deserves a fair opportunity to rise to whatever level he can. Every single American deserves to be treated fairly. I hear that term. I hear it batted back and forth.

So what is the real definition of ``fair''?

I went to Webster's Dictionary. It says ``fair'' is treating people in a way that does not favor some over others. It does not treat one person in a favorable way over somebody else.

That is truly, uniquely American because there are very few places in the world where everybody does get treated fairly.

When I look at the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, I ask myself: Is this really fair?

If you look at this definition, it goes farther down and gives the antonym, or the opposite meaning. I would say that, if you were to look at what is not fair, the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, would be one of those things that would be the direct opposite of what fair is.

Is it fair to give 1,200 waivers to some and not to others? Is it fair to say to employers, do you know what, this is a very complicated law, and it has grown so complicated that you need another year to give you a fair chance to understand what's in it, so we're going to give you a year's delay. Now, if you're an individual, no, you're not given that.

So my question is: Is it fair? Is it fair to give one group something and the individual not?

I don't know. I don't know that that meets anybody's definition of what fair is.

Also, I heard Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius asked that very same question by a journalist:

So, Secretary Sebelius, is it fair to go ahead and give employers 1 year to figure it out because it's so hard to understand that it's not really fair to put that kind of pressure on them; yet, with the individuals, they have to do it today?

She says: No, no, no. They can opt out if they're not ready to do that. Now, you have to pay a fine if you want to opt out. You have to pay a fine if you don't want to participate at all.

You are held to a different set of standards than another group, so I don't know how that fits under the definition of fair.

We can talk about this and go back and forth all day long, but this is a gift. This Affordable Care Act--this ObamaCare--is a gift that keeps giving. It's a law that, while it's giving, it's also taking. It is driving our debt to an unbelievable level. The President says it's going to reduce our debt over the long run. The truth of the matter is in 10 years it adds $1.8 trillion, and that's a pretty fairly heavy debt for the people to absorb.

Now, back home--and I don't know if this lady is a Republican or a Democrat--Melissa had written to me from Hermitage, Pennsylvania. I want you to understand how this is. This is an individual. She has two degrees, one in criminal justice and one in teaching, but she couldn't get a job, so she started her own business.

She says:

No government loans, no bank loans, no investors, and I

have grown the business over the past handful of years. I

received a letter from my insurance provider, Aetna, and

according to my letter, no longer am I going to be covered

after November 25. I operate a small business, a successful

business in this economy.

Now she talks about her daughter, Riley:

Riley is a young girl who is working her way through school

as a part-time cashier at a local grocery store. She makes

minimum wage, and she is paying for her own health care

benefits. She got a letter, saying, Do you know what, your

policy that you have now is going to go from $70 a month, and

it's going to triple. It is going to put a heavy weight on

her in order for her to stay covered.

So we talk about fair, and we talk about what's fair to everybody-- not just to a few but to everybody. My friends get up, and they rail about what we are not doing, about how we are not treating the law fairly. The law is not treating us fairly. Sadly, we are in a time when Americans don't expect an awful lot out of Washington. In fact, it's fair to say they don't expect hardly anything out of Washington, but they do expect to be treated fairly.

So I would say to everybody: Please, let's treat everybody the same. This is America. That's what makes us unique, and that's what makes us special.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, the word ``hypocrisy'' has been thrown around a lot tonight.

I got to Congress about 3 years ago, and my understanding was if you were Republican, you hated women, infants, children, veterans, and seniors.

This week, we have tried to address the problems of women, infants, children, veterans, and seniors. For some reason, our colleagues can't understand that because they say, You are using these people as political pawns.

And the hypocrisy of it is they no longer can stand up when they say that they defend these folks because they have turned their backs on them this week; and instead of helping them, they have turned a cold shoulder.

When I was a child growing up, I used to make a list every night when it came close to Christmas of everything that I wanted, and I'd wake up Christmas morning and I never got everything I wanted, but boy, was I glad for everything I got.

If you're telling me tonight that you are turning your back on the same people that you say only your party defends, that is the height of hypocrisy. It's totally uncalled for on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my staff, especially Mr. Isaac Fong, for his dedication and hard work on the issue of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States, a child is diagnosed with cancer every 36 minutes. Cancer remains the leading cause of death by disease for children under 15.

Now, each September is National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. I would just like to point out there is a program by Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai dealers. We have raised over $72 million in the fight against pediatric cancer. We have been able to turn back the clock, and at this time we can say that almost 85 percent of children diagnosed with this dreaded disease survive. So it is with great pride that I'm here this evening.

I would also like to point out that this past July, Hyundai Hope on Wheels awarded a $75,000 grant to Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh at the University of Pittsburgh, which will help Dr. J. Anthony Graves continue his cancer therapies to treat children from the Third District of Pennsylvania and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which Secretary Kerry signed today at a U.N. ceremony on behalf of the United States.

My opposition and my colleagues' opposition is not a Republican agenda. It is the defense of all Americans' right as enshrined in our Constitution and in our Bill of Rights.

The Obama administration's participation in the Arms Trade Treaty has left a trail of broken promises, and all in the form of ``red lines'' this administration has laid out and later abandoned. I'd like to talk about a few of them right now.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit into the Record the State Department's Web page listing ``Key U.S. Redlines'' for the ATT.

Key U.S. Redlines

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or

trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by

the U.S. Constitution.

There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign

control over issues involving the private acquisition,

ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain

matters of domestic law.

The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing

U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to

import, export, or transfer arms in support of our, national

security and foreign policy interests.

The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial

activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must

not be unduly hindered.

There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking

and tracing of ammunition or explosives.

There will be no lowering of current international

standards.

Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must

not be undermined.

The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to

allow us to protect U.S. equities.

There will be no mandate for an international body to

enforce an ATT.

Now, one of those red lines says: ``The Second Amendment to the Constitution

must be upheld.'' But the Treaty contains only a weak, nonbinding reference to civilian ownership and fails to uphold the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is enshrined in our Second Amendment.

Furthermore, the Treaty encourages nations to collect the identities of owners of imported firearms. It creates the core of a national gun registry. This violates existing U.S. law.

But it doesn't stop there. The Arms Trade Treaty requires nations to report the data they collect to the United Nations. If this data contains information on individual owners, it would constitute a serious, dangerous privacy violation. Now, it sounds like this administration doesn't take this Second Amendment red line very seriously.

Another red line says: ``The ATT negotiations must have consensus decisionmaking to allow us to protect U.S. equities.'' Now, in the U.N., ``consensus'' means unanimity--all members on board in totality. But when that failed, the Obama administration supported the ATT's adoption by a simple majority rule vote in the United Nations General Assembly. The administration broke its own most important red line.

Now, the U.S. regularly demands that negotiations be conducted by consensus to protect our interests and our sovereignty, which is critical when the U.S. is in the minority or when we are standing alone at the U.N. Now, by breaking their own red line, this administration has seriously reduced U.S. credibility because other countries now know that if they push hard enough, America will accept a majority rule vote.

In February 2010, Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher stated if the whole world does not sign on, then the ATT is ``less than useless.'' A number of key nation-states--including such stalwarts of freedom and liberty as Russia, China, and others like India, Indonesia, Iran and North Korea, among many others--do not support the Arms Trade Treaty. Therefore, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is less than useless.

Is the ATT less than useless, or is consensus just another red line that the Obama administration doesn't take very seriously.

Today, Secretary Kerry said: ``This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom.'' Here is yet but another promise. Do we really think it's credible?

Last month, the Obama administration took executive action to ban the import of Korean War-era, vintage, collectible M-1 Garand rifles on spurious public safety grounds. These are collectors' items. This shows how this administration's action can be used to choke off firearms imports.

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty will only encourage more mischief. It only holds the good accountable and let's the bad do what they want.

In the real world, promises do matter. We have made strategic, moral, and legal commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel. What do these promises really mean to President Obama? And what message does the ATT send to our allies? And they wonder: Is America really there for us when we need them, or is this just more talk, more empty words?

The American people have had enough of the Obama administration's broken promises and phony, nonexistent red lines on ATT. I urge my colleagues to join together to oppose the ATT.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I thank my friend.

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield to my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Richard Hudson.

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. Your comments are very timely and very needed.

At this time, I would like to have Mr. Steve Stockman from Texas 36 address the situation.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

At this time, I would like to yield to Jim Bridenstine, who represents Oklahoma 51.

Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.

At this time, I would like to yield to the Member from Mississippi 1, Mr. Alan Nunnelee.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a number of Members tonight. I think this is a day that we really have to reflect back and look at mixed messages.

Back in 2009 at a NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, the President said:

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect

that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the

Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

Yesterday, the President stood in front of the United Nations and said:

Some may disagree, but I believe America is exceptional, in

part because we have shown a willingness through the

sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our

own narrow interest, but for the interest of all.

I would just like to suggest to the President that ``integrity'' is defined by ``saying what you mean and meaning what you say.'' Taking a moment to express something that may or may not be the true core value of who you are or what you believe is not acceptable. What makes us truly exceptional as Americans is we are there every day in every way to those who we told we would be.

The U.S. has the most sophisticated arms export control system in the world. It has commonly been called the gold standard. That term ``gold standard'' was used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Yet this Arms Trade Treaty does nothing at all to improve our system.

We not only have laws on the export of arms; we actually enforce them. People can and regularly do go to jail for breaking those laws.

Now, the Arms Trade Treaty will not improve the systems in other countries, which, in many cases, actually have no systems at all. There is a lot more to running an effective arms export control system than simply signing a piece of paper and using your signature to express something that is not truly in your heart.

There is so much vagueness with this Arms Trade Treaty. Our regulations describing what we control are the most sophisticated in the world. It is really extremely difficult to evade them with word games. We mean what we say, and we say what we mean. It's just integrity. Simple. The Arms Trade Treaty, by contrast, is so vague that it

offers many opportunities for nations to claim they are complying with the treaty while really carrying on as normal. This has the effect of legitimizing the actions of bad actors.

We have a regular system for actually making the decisions about what we will export and to whom we will export. This system takes many things into account, but it is fundamentally based on upholding the United States' national interest. It is not controlled by exporters, unlike in Europe, where exporter interests actually dominate their policies. This Arms Trade Treaty will do nothing to change that, but it will give exporter-dominated nations a shield to hide behind.

Every nation-state can control the arms trade if it is truly willing to do so--and the United States is ready to help--but few have meaningful laws about the arms trade, and even fewer make any attempt to enforce them. The United States has two major programs to help the serious countries:

First, the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance--and it goes by the term EXBS--is run from the State Department. The second is the Humanitarian Mine Action Program, HMA, which includes stockpile conventional munitions assistance, intended to assist in the disposal, demilitarization, security, and management of explosive stockpiles, which is run by the Department of Defense.

According to the State Department, the U.S. has contributed over $2 billion to reduce the harmful effects of illicit, indiscriminately used conventional weapons through the Conventional Weapons Destruction Program, which includes the HMA. In other words, the United States actually backs its words with money and investment, and we have made that attempt throughout the whole world.

Listen, our arms export control system is the gold standard of the world. We are not greedy with our gold. We are willing to share our practical knowledge with nation-states that are serious about arms export controls. Let us not fall for the fool's gold of a treaty that truly overpromises and underdelivers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to the Members of Congress from around the country who joined me tonight in this Special Order to oppose the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

I would ask the citizens of the United States, as Mr. Stockman said, to please wake up. We are losing our country day by day in ways that we do not recognize, in ways that we do not know, and, truly, the sacrifice that this Nation has made over the years is of our 1.4 million men and women in uniform who have died to preserve those personal freedoms and liberties.

This is not a good day for the United States. This is a day when the United States lowered its expectations in its exceptionalism to something that does not truly protect the United States and that has a dire effect on our sovereignty as a Nation.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 4 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 26, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise In strong support of H.R. 2449, a bipartisan bill to extend the current U.S.-Korea civil nuclear agreement for two years.

This year we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-South Korea alliance. Over the decades, South Korea has become a key U.S. ally in Asia and we stand shoulder to shoulder in political, strategic, military, cultural, and other issues.

One of these crucial issues is energy. This extension will allow the U.S. and Korea to enter into a new era of energy partnership.

The current nuclear cooperation agreement is due to expire in March 2014 and its prompt extension is vital to avoid trade disruptions.

It is critical that we uphold the reputation of the U.S. as a stable and reliable trading partner, in light of the energy industry's long- lead items and use of long-term contracts for nuclear components, fuel and services.

Ultimately this is about jobs: red, white, and blue American jobs. Billions of dollars in U.S. exports and thousands of U.S. jobs are at stake if we fail.

This is about jobs for U.S. companies such as Westinghouse, which is headquartered in Cranberry, PA, in my own district. Westinghouse, which employs about 9000 employees in the U.S., has been a leader in energy cooperation with Korea for nearly four decades.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.