Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Whitfield and Chairman Upton for helping me work this bill through our committee. It is great to have it on the floor today. We now have a bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at making simple, commonsense reforms to the natural gas pipeline permitting process.

Rather than eliminating environmental regulations and permits, H.R. 1900 takes a very reasonable approach by requiring agencies involved in the permitting of natural gas pipelines, simply requesting that they finish their work in a timely manner.

The legislation builds off reforms made in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which placed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the lead agency for interstate natural gas pipelines.

As we have heard this morning, natural gas is becoming a dominant force in the electricity generation and manufacturing sectors. It is critical that pipeline construction can take place through a modernized permitting process, and that is what this bill aims to do.

The current interstate natural gas pipeline permitting process, established in 2005, is already in need of updating because of the enormous shale gas boom. H.R. 1900 makes changes to the interstate natural gas pipeline permitting process by simply putting in place statutory deadlines for each of the permitting agencies to complete their work. This is pretty reasonable. We are simply asking agencies to do what the law requires them to do. They can say ``yes'' to a permit, they can deny the permit, but they can't sit on it. They have to do their homework. They have to get the job done.

FERC is already the lead agency for coordinating environmental review of interstate natural gas pipelines, and as FERC testified in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year, the deadlines imposed by H.R. 1900 are reasonable. In fact, FERC asked for a couple of changes in the legislation, and in each case we made those changes at their request.

If, after H.R. 1900 were to become law, an agency doesn't complete its work, the permit would automatically be approved by statute. I have heard others say this is unprecedented, but that is simply not the case. There are numbers of examples all throughout the Federal code where statutory approvals of environmental permits are deemed approved in the absence of the agency saying to the contrary.

I can't imagine anyone saying that this legislation is radical or unprecedented. More importantly, I can't see that they could claim that it is unnecessary. To my left you can see the impact of the absence of natural gas infrastructure all across the country. Frankly, in Kansas, we are in pretty good shape, but on the east coast, here in the Northeast where I am standing today, and on the west coast, you see enormously high natural gas costs: 24 percent above the national average in New York; 20 percent above the national average in Arizona; 67 percent above the national average in Maine; and 68 percent above the national average for the cost of natural gas in the State of Florida. We are seeing these prices rise because we don't have infrastructure development adequate to meet the needs of manufacturers and consumers in these places.

The New York Times, that bastion of conservatism, wrote the following, saying that FERC was ``concerned about increasing reliance on natural gas-fuel generators at times when there is an increasingly tight availability of pipeline capacity to deliver natural gas from the south and the west to New England.''

The Boston Globe, writing about pipeline projects in New England, said that the projects come ``as New England struggles to address growing demand for natural gas and supply constraints created by tight pipeline capacity. Those constraints have led to shortages and price spikes during the peak demand periods, such as extended winter cold snaps, helping to drive the region's already high energy costs even higher.''

The New York Times and the Boston Globe recognize the need for H.R. 1900.

This is not a manufactured crisis or bill in search of a problem. This is a real issue with real consequences for jobs in America and for average working families all across our country. The bill will give certainty to natural gas pipeline developers that invest in projects which could transport affordable energy to consumers all across the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1900 and address a very real issue impacting consumers and manufacturers all across the country.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of points are worth noting to make sure that everybody understands exactly what we are up against.

There has been some suggestion that this is unnecessary, and maybe in the eyes of some in Washington, some political officials, it is unnecessary; but the people who this matters to--consumers, manufacturers all across the country--know that this is a necessary piece of legislation. The National Association of Manufacturers has said that this is something that would be important to creating manufacturing jobs for families all across the country. The Chamber of Commerce has similarly made this comment.

It was earlier stated that some folks were unaware of union support for this legislation. I want to make sure that everyone is fully aware that the Laborers' International Union of North America, the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, and the operating engineers have all been supportive of H.R. 1900 and the importance of energy infrastructure expanding all across our country.

Finally, there has been this idea that FERC approves 90 percent of the permits. It has been repeated time and time again. It is just factually incomplete. It is like, if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it. Technically perhaps true in the most narrow sense, but in reality, it is not the case that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves 90 percent of all permits or that they are all approved. FERC is but one of many, many agencies that has the authority to approve and deny permits. So this 90 percent number that continues to be thrown around is just false. We don't have 90 percent of all folks seeking to build pipelines being able to build those pipelines in a timely fashion. They are being delayed.

There is real demand for this. There is demand from the New England Ratepayers Association. There is demand in States like Florida, where the natural gas rates are 60 percent higher than the national average. This is a real need. This is a real challenge.

And if we do this, if we get H.R. 1900 passed, all we are simply saying is do your job. Finish the process. If you decide that the permit shouldn't be built, any of these agencies can deny that permit being built. That seems fine. We are not denying any agency the capacity to deny a permit. But do the work. Tell these folks that, No, you are not going to get it, and then allow the process to move forward.

These unions, these associations, these real hardworking families need natural gas at an affordable price to be delivered to them, and H.R. 1900 will help achieve that objective.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the EPA already asserts that it has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--and methane is defined as a greenhouse gas.

The EPA's New Source Performance Standards capture GHG emissions above a certain threshold. Permits are already required for facilities whose emissions are anticipated to be above that threshold. The EPA's permitting process should be the forum for this decisionmaking.

FERC's primary role, rather, should be as an economic regulator--the same way that it is today, and the same way it would be after H.R. 1900 would become law. It would want to defer environmental matters like this to the appropriate agency, which would be the EPA.

The amendment is structured such that the determination would have to be made before the NEPA analysis would begin. In other words, when the FERC ``complete'' application is filed and FERC is put into the role of determining methane ``best practices'' rather than EPA. This puts the cart before the horse. Such decisions on methane emissions should be made as part of the EPA permitting process.

Regarding methane emissions in general, the industry has every incentive to control methane leaks. Escaping methane is escaping product--something they do not want to happen. That means losses for their businesses.

This amendment would add unnecessary requirements to a problem that is already being addressed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tonko amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment from the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Chairman, there has been reference that Ms. Castor presented relating to what the industry wants that says this will actually mess it up. It will make pipeline permitting take longer.

Let me read for you what was written in a letter to me on November 14 of this year from that industry association. This is a letter from INGAA, signed by Mr. Santa, the president and CEO, who said:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 attempted to coordinate the

permitting of new natural gas pipelines by designating FERC

as the lead agency under NEPA and granting FERC the authority

to set deadlines for permitting agencies to act on pipeline

actions. EPAct

2005, however, did not confer upon FERC the authority to

enforce such deadlines. As a result, permitting agencies

routinely ignore them.

It is critical that pipeline expansion keep pace with

demand in such regions as New England. A clear, timely review

of permits associated with proposed pipeline projects is

critical to meeting these goals.

The industry is full-throatedly in support of making sure

that H.R. 1900 becomes law, and this amendment would prevent

the key provisions of that from happening.

We know we are seeing skyrocketing prices. The worst residential price increases in the country are in the gentlewoman's home State of Florida, where natural gas is now $15.43 an mcf--68 percent above the natural average in the home State of the gentlelady who has offered this amendment.

Part of this enormous price increase in Florida and in other States is a direct result of insufficient pipeline capacity to keep up with production and demand inside the State of Florida--and that is great. I am glad there is demand in Florida. We now just simply need to get them affordable energy so they can continue to grow jobs for Florida families.

In July of this year, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on H.R. 1900, where multiple stakeholders testified, including NextEra Energy, a Florida-based energy company which, in addition to being the largest wind company in North America, is also one of the Nation's largest purchasers and consumers of natural gas power for electric power generation.

Regarding the possibility that an agency might ultimately choose to deny an application because of H.R. 1900, something that this amendment is offered to make sure doesn't happen, ostensibly, NextEra stated the following in its testimony:

In infrastructure development, a timely ``no'' is much

preferable to an interminable ``maybe.''

That is, we have folks who just simply need certainty. They need answers.

The gentlewoman from Florida talked about increased litigation. I am thrilled to see folks on the other side of the aisle finally worried about the plaintiffs' bar and excessive delays that the plaintiffs' bar throws into the regulatory process. I promise my cooperation full- throatedly to work across the aisle to make sure that H.R. 1900 doesn't add a single job in the plaintiffs' bar anywhere in the United States of America.

Finally, Ms. Castor's amendment was offered because they are concerned about the idea that a permit would be deemed approved after a certain time, claiming in some cases that this has been unprecedented. Yet in the Clean Water Act, within 45 days of receipt of an application, under 33 U.S.C. 129, if no ruling has been issued, a permit ``shall be deemed approved.''

Under TSCA, section 5, again, a company seeking an application must submit a notice of commencement to EPA within 30 days, after which the chemical is considered an existing chemical. That is, the request is deemed approved.

This is not unprecedented.

The idea that this provision is extreme or unprecedented is simply not supported by the facts, and the precedent for applications being approved if a governing agency fails to act is very common in our Federal law.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Castor amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which would strike the entire piece of legislation and replace it with a GAO study.

The GAO back in February of this year issued a report detailing what they called the ``complex'' natural gas pipeline permitting process. This amendment would simply ask the GAO to duplicate many of those same findings that were done in a report issued less than a year ago, and there is simply no need for that.

I understand the gentleman from Michigan thinks this legislation is unnecessary, but I respectfully disagree. I

will give one example of where the claims regarding the approval timelines for natural gas permit pipelines have been dubious.

It has been erroneously repeated by opponents of this legislation that FERC testified in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee that 90 percent of the permits are being done on time. This is simply not the case. This is not what FERC stated in their testimony. It stated that 90 percent of the certificates are being completed within 12 months. There is an awful lot of difference between a certificate and a permit.

FERC is in control of only the certificate process, but they are at the mercy of other agencies with respect to the permit approval process. This is the main reason for the need for this legislation, because FERC has absolutely no enforcement authority over the other agencies to process permits on schedule. This brings accountability to other agencies.

Even though 90 percent of certificates are being processed by FERC in the 12-month period, it doesn't tell the full story. It would be talking about the bills that the House of Representatives passed and talking only about our naming of post offices and not talking about the substantive legislation, the important things, we do here in the House of Representatives.

I would also remind the gentleman from Michigan that the need for this legislation is so great that it garners support not just from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, but also the major electricity trade associations across the country: Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the American Public Power Association, as well as the New England Ratepayers Association, whose members are experiencing skyrocketing natural gas prices.

This amendment would gut the bill and ignore the core problem of stubbornly high natural gas prices in certain regions across the Nation. It dismisses the need for an improved permitting process for natural gas pipeline infrastructure completely.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's agreement, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just reiterate there is enormous importance to this legislation. While I appreciate that the gentleman from Michigan offered his amendment in a friendly tone, it guts the legislation in its entirety.

I also want to offer that H.R. 1900 is offered in a friendly manner. It is offered friendly to places like Michigan, New York, Florida, and Arizona, places that are paying unnecessarily high prices for natural gas in their parts of the country.

With that, I would urge rejection of this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, while we share every one of our colleagues' concerns about pipeline safety, nothing in this legislation does anything to impact the safety of pipelines all across the country. Indeed, putting in new pipelines, increasing capacity for natural gas pipelines, will actually allow the retirement of older pipelines which might present even more risk.

We all know the tragic incident that happened in San Bruno, California. This body has taken action to rectify that. There were pipeline safety bills passed with all of the Members of the House, and it passed in the Senate as well, to make sure that every pipeline built is done so in a way that is safe and responsible and with plenty of time for community input.

The motion to recommit suggests that H.R. 1900 would eliminate that time. It does nothing of that nature. In every case, for a complex pipeline, there will be nearly 2 years' time for communities and interest groups who have concerns about the pipeline going into their territory, their region, to make their voices heard and to make their concerns registered in the public place.

I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and pass the underlying legislation, H.R. 1900.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1848) to ensure that the Federal Aviation Administration advances the safety of small airplanes, and the continued development of the general aviation industry, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

I thank the chairman for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, it troubles me that the administration is once again going out of its way to cause pain for the American people and at great risk to America's safety. We see this up close and personal in my district with this incomprehensible closure of the FAA registry office. That is the office that allows air flights to be transferred, to be sold and bought and purchased and entered into service. In previous shutdowns, this office was deemed essential. It was kept open and for good reason. It is the equivalent of DMV for

aircraft; you have to keep this pipeline moving. It is important for safety and for workers. It is affecting thousands of families all across the country who build these airplanes--engineers and workers and manufacturers and sheet metal benders--especially in the Fourth District, the air capital of the world.

There are thousands of families, many of them hardworking union families folks across the aisle tell me they care deeply about, and I know that I do, too. I would urge these folks on the other side of the aisle to recognize the importance to our labor force, to keep America safe, to get the aircraft registry back open, and to pass this legislation on the floor today.

Thank you for yielding. I appreciate the time.

I imagine, Ms. Jenkins, you're hearing some of the same things as I am as you return to Kansas and talk to our constituents.

This is serious business. We're standing here tonight with a partial government shutdown, and I don't think anybody thinks that's the best outcome for America. I think we all want America's essential vital services and systems to be functioning and up and running, but what we're dealing with in the Affordable Care Act is also a very serious matter. It's very real. It's not a game.

I've heard some across the aisle suggest that by trying our best to fund the pieces of the government that matter and not fund the Affordable Care Act, we're taking hostages. I find that language, in one sense, offensive. But most importantly, I find it inaccurate. It doesn't represent what we're trying to do. We're not taking hostages. What we're trying to do is take account of what our constituents are telling us, and I want to talk about that just a little bit.

I tried to get online yesterday myself to enroll in the Affordable Care Act. I was met with a bit of a blank screen and a long pause. I did manage to get through to the 1-800 phone number that was provided on the screen. I was told if I stayed on the line, 20 minutes later I'd get a live voice. Some hour and 40 minutes later, I did manage to get a live voice. There was great music in the interim.

And I got a live voice. It was a young lady who told me she was from Louisiana. She said, Why did you call? I said, I'm calling to comply with the Federal law. She said, I'm not going to be able to help you with that today. My system is down, too.

She was a government contractor working out of Louisiana. I asked her how long she'd been working on this. She said, Quite a while.

In fact, yesterday wasn't the first day of the Affordable Care Act. We're now some 3 years into it. It's not the case that the bill was passed and there wasn't enough time to have this system ready. I imagine some of the kinks will get worked out. The President calls them hiccups. I hope the hiccups are the worst medical ailment that comes from the Affordable Care Act, but I fear that they won't be the worst ailment.

In fact, I've already heard countless stories. I'll recount just three of them.

Just today, I received an email from a small employer with about 60 folks throughout Kansas. He indicated to me that he just received this week a letter indicating that his health insurance premiums for his business--he's the number two guy in the company--were going to be up somewhere between 30 and 40 percent. He reminded that his health care premiums had gone up before, but he said he'd never seen anything like this.

A real impact, there will be a real impact. He's trying to figure out, what do you do? How much of that cost gets passed on in copays and deductibles to the employees? How much of that cost does the company eat, making them less competitive in the global environment in which they're trying to compete. A real story from a real Kansas business impacting real lives.

I spoke 3 weeks ago, when I was last back in Kansas, with a number of folks from some smaller hospitals in the rural part of south central Kansas. Those are called critical access care hospitals. They serve vital functions for less densely populated parts of our country.

I was talking about the impact of the Affordable Care Act and they said, you know, things have been tough at some of these hospitals before. There are times when it's difficult to make ends meet and to provide all the services that people need. Docs come in from Wichita and from Kansas City and from other places to help part-time to provide these services in rural parts of the State. They said that after the Affordable Care Act it would be even more difficult, almost impossible, to keep these hospitals open and functioning and providing these valuable services. Real lives, real Kansans, real people with a real impact from the Affordable Care Act.

Finally, I met with a young couple during that same trip home. Both of them work. They work at jobs where they were working for 40 hours a week and have now been told it's likely that they won't. They were still working 40 hours a week at the time. Their employer had just put them on notice and had suggested then that they begin to look for second jobs, or that maybe one spouse should leave that company and go work someplace else. Of course the rationale that had been provided by these people's employer was that if they continue to have full-time employees--what America has always had, full-time employees, 40-hour workweeks--that there would be an enormous cost that would flow to that employer where they simply couldn't keep the business running with a full-time work staff.

So here's two folks that had pretty good health benefits, great jobs, 40-hour-a-week jobs, jobs they were very happy with, jobs that permitted them to take care of their families, and their life is going to be changed. Real Kansans, real lives affected by the Affordable Care Act.

We've seen this kind of thing all too often. I suspect that some of these glitches at the beginning will probably get worked out, but you can't fix provisions like that without fundamental changes to the Affordable Care Act. I think that's pretty evident.

The President had seen this all coming. The President chose to provide waivers for lots and lots of groups. Lots of folks who have come and said: This is harsh; this is penal; this is not working; and the President said: Here's a waiver. Here, you can have a change.

That's just not the American way. It's not the way that we operate here, where we try to provide health care systems that are the same and fair and equal for all American citizens and all American employers and everyone who is trying to make their way and take care of their own families. These are very real issues.

I have seen this fight over these last few weeks. It's no different than the same discussions that have been taking place for 3 years. I've been here almost that long in Congress where we've been talking about what we thought would happen when this day came, when, for the first time, people would have to begin to think about what real costs were, what it was really going to look like.

And I wish, I truly wish that we had overblown the risk, we had overdramatized what was really going to happen,

that we had falsely alerted the American people that the Affordable Care Act was going to be a train wreck or a disaster; but, sadly, I think the evidence, as it mounts, as it comes in, demonstrates that we may have underestimated the risk. We may have underestimated how badly this is going to impact the American economy. We may have underestimated how many primary care physicians are going to just say ``I can't make a go of this anymore'' and leave the practice. After all, right, it's not about insurance; it's not about having a piece of paper or a card that says you're entitled to health care. It's about receiving health care. It's about being fixed when you've got something broken. It's about being cured when you've got something that's made you sick.

This isn't about paper. This isn't about politics. This is about real lives and kids who need treatment. It's not enough to say: It's wonderful. I have this thing called ObamaCare, but I can't find a physician who will treat me.

These are the kind of things that we need to work on and need to try and fix.

I will say this lastly. There has been some suggestion that this is partisan, this is about Democrats versus Republicans. For me, this is not it at all. The President made a statement yesterday. He said this bill was popular; this is why the system was overcrowded and you couldn't get on. It's not popular; it's a law. These people didn't go on this health care system because they like it. They did so because they were required to do so on pain of penalty by the Federal Government.

I saw today someone who had been told that if they didn't comply, they might end up with a tax lien because they didn't pay a penalty. This is not the American way. This is not a health care system that's going to work.

I hope my colleagues will help us. I hope they will come to see that all we're asking for at this point in time is not what we'd really like--we've compromised already. What we would like to see at this point is we are happy to compromise and settle just for a short time, just for a delay, to try and make it better, to try and impact those real people, those real Kansans who are going to be really impacted by a law which won't do what it is the President promised it would do.

Ms. Jenkins, thank you for yielding the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Nugent to offer the Nugent amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer this evening clarifies and confirms the scope of two programs that Mr. Snowden illegally exposed while sitting in a hotel room in Communist China.

First, the amendment clarifies that under section 702 no U.S. citizen or person in the U.S. can be targeted, period. I say again, no U.S. person under section 702 may be targeted in any way by the United States Government. While there are other specific authorities the U.S. person may be subject to an investigation, the U.S. Government may not do so under section 702. That's what this amendment intends to clarify.

The second part of the amendment clarifies section 215, also known as section 501 of FISA. The amendment clarifies that no content of communications can be stored or collected by the National Security Agency--that's no emails, no video clips, no Skype. No record of the actual conversation or the contents thereof may be recorded or collected by the National Security Agency. I can't repeat that enough. That's the intent of this amendment.

I want to make clear to everyone that, contrary to the suggestions of some, the NSA has not been acting outside of the scope of its authorities. The Meta-Data program is carefully designed with program layers of oversight by all three branchs of government. This is precisely the way our government ought to operate, with input from Article I and Article II and Article III of the United States Constitution.

It is, of course, our duty to ensure that the NSA stays within these legal bounds here in Congress, and this amendment makes those boundaries perfectly clear for everyone to know and understand.

And we shouldn't mislead the American people into thinking that the NSA has been acting illegally. There is perhaps no program in the United States Government that is as carefully monitored and overseen as the programs this amendment attempts to clarify.

To the extent that some in this Chamber wish to review or provide more protections and controls for these programs, we should proceed through a carefully considered and debated legislative process so that the full implications for our security are clearly understood.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to correct a couple of things.

This legislation is not a fig leaf. It is intended to clarify some things that have been said, some beliefs that people hold, about what section 215 authorizes and what section 702 authorizes.

It is intended to make crystal clear to everyone here, as well as to the American public, the boundaries of these two important national security programs. These laws have been in place and interpreted by multiple administrations in the same way. There was no change in this law when this President came into office, and we should continue to support these programs regardless of who is the Commander in Chief for the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I submit this letter of support from the International Association of Machinists on H.R. 1848, the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act.

International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers,

Upper Marlboro, MD, July 16, 2013.

Dear Representative: As the largest union in the general

aviation industry, the International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) strongly supports the

Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013, H.R. 1848. This

bipartisan legislation will provide much needed support to an

often over looked, but important sector of the U.S. aerospace

industry.

After an extensive review of the current regulatory

structure that garnered input from government and industry

experts, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation

Rulemaking Committee developed the recommendations that form

the basis for H.R. 1848. Under this legislation, the FAA will

modernize the regulatory structure for small, certified

aircraft--commonly referred to as Part 23 Aircraft by the end

of 2015. Modernizing the existing cumbersome regulatory

structure and process will have the beneficial effect of

improving safety while stimulating much needed investment.

I urge your support of this important legislation. It will

make general aviation safer and help grow an industry that

has been a source of good paying American jobs.

If you have any questions, please contact Legislative

Director Hasan Solomon.

Sincerely,

R. Thomas Buffenbarger,

International President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the general aviation industry and ask my fellow Members to support the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act. This commonsense, broadly bipartisan regulatory reform bill will spur economic growth, improve aviation safety, and help strengthen the health of the lighter, entry-level segment of the industry.

Mr. Speaker, there is no better reason to support this legislation than it saves lives and improves lives. Think about that. We can do both in one fell swoop.

Let's first talk about how the bill improves lives. I represent Wichita, Kansas. It is the Air Capital of the World. It is home to Cessna and Learjet and Beechcraft and dozens and dozens and dozens of suppliers to those great aviation businesses with such great aviation histories. It's the home of the National Institute for Aviation Research and the National Center for Aviation Training.

There are engineers, machinists, researchers, flight instructors, fixed base operators, among others, that all depend on a healthy general aviation industry. And then there are the operators in the industry and general aviation. This vital productivity tool for both small and large companies is critically important.

Sixteen years ago, I joined the Kansas general aviation industry, building a business with three of my colleagues, founding a company called Thayer Aerospace, a machine shop in Wichita, Kansas. We made parts for the thriving aircraft industry, but the downturn in 2008 was a tremendous blow to Wichita, in particular, and general aviation, more generally. We experienced thousands and thousands of layoffs and dramatic downsizing all across the region. The downturn exacerbated the unique challenges that the lighter, entry-level segment of general aviation had been experiencing over the past several decades.

Today, the average general aviation airplane is 40 years old. That means most of the new aircraft were built in the 1960s and 1970s, with designs of that same vintage. Current general aviation production represents less than 2 percent of the existing fleet.

We've had an over 10,000-person-per-year decline in active private pilots over this last decade. The steady decline in new pilots, flight activity, and the sales of new small general aviation airplanes that result from that are indicators of significant problems in the industry.

To tackle this problem, this bill, the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act, requires the FAA to implement the FAA's part 23 certification process and modernize it no later than 2015. The FAA Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), composed of aviation authorities and industry representatives from around the world, has worked over the last 18 months to create a regulatory environment that will contribute to revitalizing the health and safety of new and existing airplanes.

These changes will remove lots and lots of barriers and it will improve lives. Let me tell you how it will save lives.

The gentleman from Wisconsin talked about safety and innovation being retarded by the absence of a streamlined regulatory process. He spoke of this example of ``loss of control.'' That creates more than three times the cause of aviation accidents than any other single cause.

Since the dawn of aviation, we've taught pilots how to avoid that; but because they remain a significant safety problem, there's tremendous interest in technology and interventions to resolve it. And yet today's part 23 makes that more difficult. By putting these technologies into the new and existing fleet, it's widely believed that the safety of light general aviation aircraft could see dramatic improvements.

We need to cut this red tape. It will create savings for sure, but, more importantly, it will save lives. This is a commonsense and important reform.

America's general aviation industry is not asking for a single handout, not one subsidy. It's simply asking for a streamlined set of regulations that will permit them to get their airplanes, their designs to market more quickly, and still doing so safely.

I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman LoBiondo for their support, and my original cosponsors, Mr.

Nolan, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Graves of Missouri, and Mr. Rokita, and all the folks of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on both sides of the aisle that have allowed this bill to get this far and make it to the floor.

I urge support of all of my colleagues this evening and hope we'll have a unanimous vote on behalf of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

There are a few facts that I think are appropriate to bring to this debate. I oppose this amendment vigorously. Just 2 weeks ago I was down at Guantanamo Bay on a trip that was part of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. I will tell you that the soldiers and marines and airmen of Joint Task Force Gitmo are taking tremendous care of the facilities, our assets and the detainees.

Those who suggest that this facility should go away will create a problem that is worse than the one that we have today. This amendment is simply a pattern of appeasement that does not comport with the fact that radical Islamic terrorists will not cease to attack us simply because we wish they would go away.

A few more facts. If we close Guantanamo Bay, we try to release them to countries that will accept them, we know that at least a quarter of them will return to the battlefield. We could bring them back to the United States, where they'd go to civilian courts, and undoubtedly some of them would end up walking the streets of the United States.

One of the final facts, and one that I've heard said in support of this amendment, is that if we simply close this facility that recruiting for radical extremists will diminish. This seems illogical. There's no support for such a statement. They will continue to attack us whether we keep this open or closed. This facility is legal, it's just, and it is an important national asset.

Economic growth of just over 1\1/2\ percent is unsatisfactory. We all want a better economy and better jobs.

In south central Kansas, the aviation manufacturing industry has been hit particularly hard. Machinists, engineers, small business owners, and families are very worried about what their future might hold.

That's why I've offered bipartisan legislation offered in the Senate by Senator Klobuchar which will reduce the burden on manufacturers who are building airplanes in the United States of America, trying to compete with global companies all across the world.

The Small Aircraft Revitalization Act, H.R. 1848, would greatly reduce that burden and help manufacturers all across south central Kansas and indeed all across America to get their products to market faster so that we can compete and provide aircraft, great tools for all businesses, to compete all around the world. It will replace an outdated certification system and greatly ease the burden on those who are trying to build these great products here in the United States.

This bill would ensure that this industry can continue to thrive in the years and decades ahead.

Mr. Speaker, it's been just under 2 months since the attacks in Boston, and in those intervening weeks, the silence of Muslim leaders has been deafening. And that is sad, but perhaps most importantly, it's dangerous.

There have now been at least a dozen attacks by Muslim terrorists on U.S. soil since Ramzi Yousef's parked rental van exploded in the basement of the World Trade Center on February 26 of 1993. Some have caused death and injury, such as the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and Nidal Hasan's mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.

Other attacks, such as Faisal Shahzad's fizzled Times Square bombing, or the unsuccessful underwear bombing of a flight, were thwarted or aborted.

But yet, fatal or not, all of these attacks were successful in scaring Americans, successful in reducing our freedom in the most freedom-loving Nation on Earth, successful in slowing our economy, and successful in demonstrating that an open society can potentially be vulnerable.

They were, in former Attorney General Mike Mukasey's words, ``crimes that are nonetheless meant to send a terrorist message.''

When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith, and are performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation falls on those that are the leaders of that faith. Instead of responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts and, more importantly still, in those that may well follow.

If a religion claims to be one of peace, Mr. Speaker, its leaders must reject violence that is perpetrated in its name. Some clerics today suggest that modern jihad is nonviolent, and is only about making oneself a better Muslim. Perhaps that's true for moderate Muslims. But extremists seek to revive the era when most Islamic clerics understood jihad to be holy war.

Mr. Speaker, decades of Middle Eastern oil money have propounded this more extreme, violent interpretation in mosques around the world. Less than 2 months after the 9/11 atrocities, an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood preacher, who is probably the most influential Sunni cleric today, declared suicide bombing to be legitimate. He said, ``these are heroic commando and martyrdom attacks and should not be called suicide.''

So what is it that these Islamic leaders must say?

First, that there is never any justification for terrorism. No political goal legitimizes terrorism. Terrorism is never excusable as resistance. Imams must state unequivocally that terrorists' actions, killing and maiming, sully Islam.

They must also publicly and repeatedly denounce radical clerics who seek to justify terrorism. There is a battle of interpretation within Islam. It's not enough to deny responsibility by saying one's own interpretation doesn't support terrorism. Moderate imams must strive to ensure that no Muslim finds solace for terrorism in the Koran. They must cite the Koran as evidence that the murder of innocents is not permitted by good, believing Muslims, and must immediately refute all claims to the contrary.

Finally, Muslim leaders must say that there is no room for militant Islamism in the religion of peace. These statements must be made publicly, frequently and in the mosques, yes, in the mosques and in the madrassas, where many learn their Islamic religion.

You know, we have to call evil by its name in order to stamp it out. Downplaying atrocities and rampages ensures more of them. Every Muslim leader must unequivocally proclaim that terror committed in the name of Islam violates the core tenets of the Prophet Mohammed, and they must do so repeatedly, period.

My own faith has occasionally been hijacked in the name of violence and cruelty, including in Kansas, my home State, by Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. In response, hundreds of Protestant ministers preach that Mr. Phelps' actions violate the most fundamental Christian traditions, and they have denounced him and his church's evil acts.

Pope John Paul II similarly apologized, in 2000, for the Catholic Church's failure to do more to speak out against the evils of Nazism, and to protect Jews from the Holocaust.

Just as these religious leaders have called up those who have killed and acted brutally in the name of their faith, so too must Muslim religious leaders refute terrorist theology.

We're now 2 decades into Islamic radicals attacking Americans on U.S.

soil. I know that not every Muslim supports these actions. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy has spoken out in a clear and consistent way. So has Zainab al-Suwaij of the American Islamic Congress.

But the silence in the face of extremism coming from the best-funded Islamic advocacy organizations and many mosques across America is absolutely deafening. It casts doubt upon the commitment to peace by adherents of the Muslim faith. This is utterly unacceptable, it is dangerous, it must end.

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, I missed rollcall votes numbered 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, and 160 because I was in Kansas.

Rollcall No. 155 was a vote on the Previous Question. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 156 was a vote on the rule for H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory and Accountability Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 157 was a vote on an amendment to H.R. 1062 offered by Representative Hurt to express the sense of Congress that rules adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) comply with the same standards required of the SEC, and requires the SEC to ensure that any rules adopted by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), and other national securities associations comply with the standards set forth in the bill. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 158 was a vote on an amendment to H.R. 1062 offered by Representative Maloney to strike all text after the enacting clause and insert findings and a sense of Congress that the SEC is already required to conduct economic analysis as part of its rulemaking. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall No. 159 was a vote on a motion to recommit H.R. 1062. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall No. 160 was a vote on passage of H.R. 1062. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, I had the good fortune of being in Rosalia, Kansas, at the high school graduation for Flinthills High. Flinthills High has 11 strong graduating in 2013, but it was remarkable. With all the challenges the country faces, we had young people going to be nurses, young people entering our Nation's Army National Guard. We had a young man who was off to attend school but who knew that he was going to be coming back to help his father and mother on the farm.

With all of the challenges we face today, it was incredibly heartening to see this next generation of leaders being raised in the heartland. Congratulations to those 11, six young women and five young men.

Go, Mustangs.

I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for all of their hard work over many months, now years, in bringing this to where we are today, and I want to thank all of the committee staff who worked so hard to bring it to this point as well.

I'd like to keep things pretty simple. If there were a sergeant from the Chinese People's Liberation Army inside one of our power plants or inside one of our banks and if they were trying to steal stuff and if they were looking around, trying to figure out how to get in and how to access our systems or to take property or to do damage to our power grid, the American people would demand that the government do whatever it could, and they would be thrilled to learn that that company was permitted and, indeed, protected if it decided to share with others that potential threat to its piece of the infrastructure. That's what we're doing today.

The world has changed just a little bit. In just this last month, the last M-1 tank left Europe. It's the first time we haven't had a tank in Europe since D-day when the great Kansan invaded on the great quest to free us from Nazi totalitarian domination. There are no tanks. We fight in a different world today. We use the word ``cyber,'' and sometimes folks forget what we're really talking about. We're talking about nation-states trying to do terrible harm to American interests, to American property and, indeed, to American civil liberties.

Now, in the last minute I have here, I want to talk about a couple of myths that have arisen about this piece of legislation. When I first learned about it, I, too, shared some of the concerns about what might be happening, about what might take place here. I offered an amendment last year, which is now incorporated into the bill, along with dozens of such amendments, to make sure belt-and-suspenders that we protected civil liberties.

I've heard the myth propagated that this piece of legislation violates contract rights, that somehow through CISPA we're going to take away the ability of people to negotiate privately for contractual things that they want. I don't know how that could be. This bill is purely voluntary. It mandates that no one participate. It simply allows businesses to voluntarily participate and share information they have about attacks that have been foisted upon them.

I've heard a second myth that this will authorize warrantless searches across the United States of America.

There's talk about warrantless searches all across America. The legislation does no such thing. It's a short bill. It's 26 pages. I would urge everyone to go read it for themselves.

It fairly clearly limits what government may do, what information government may receive. It limits what private companies can share with government and amongst themselves. It

limits what government can do with that information once it is received. It has greatly capped what is going on here.

Its design is simple: it is to make sure that all of the information about direct attacks on America are widely known, easily disseminated, and available for all to help in the protection of the American state. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on April 11, I missed rollcall votes numbered 97, 98, and 99 because I was at the White House on official business.

Rollcall No. 97 was a vote on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 146, To Provide for Consideration of H.R. 1120, Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relation. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 98 was a vote on agreeing to H. Res. 146, To Provide for Consideration of H.R. 1120, Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor- Management Relation. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 99 was a vote on Approving the Journal. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

It is an honor today to tell you about one really good man. He was born in Pilson, Kansas, and later became an ordained priest in Wichita in 1940.

This very good man, a fellow named Emil Kapaun, served as a military chaplain during World War II and again in September 1948, this time entering the Korean battlefield with his unit, the 3rd Battalion of the 8th Cavalry Regiment of the 1st Cavalry Division.

There we saw what comes of a good man when placed in dangerous times. Father Kapaun became a hero. He died after saving hundreds of lives on the battlefield and in a prisoner of war camp, having dedicated himself to the physical and spiritual health of his fellow prisoners for a very long time.

Tomorrow, President Obama will bestow upon Father Kapaun, this very good man, the Medal of Honor, America's highest military honor.

I want to take this moment to recognize his fellow POWs who never wavered in an effort to secure this medal for Father Kapaun, to the Catholic Diocese of Wichita, and everyone else who has worked so hard for this recognition.

Finally, I want to thank the fellow Members of this body who supported my provision in the NDAA to allow a waiver for the statutory time exception so that he could receive this award.

Father Kapaun is a true American hero, a hero of mankind and so deserving of this Medal of Honor.