Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, I attended a vigil in remembrance of the 47 people that lost their lives in the Lac-Megantic railway tragedy in Quebec last July. This event drew a tremendous crowd, particularly from Albany's South End residents, who see dozens of oil tank cars move and idle outside their homes on a daily basis before entering the Port of Albany.

My constituents are concerned about the potential for another fatal accident in one of our communities, as the trail of oil cars crosses over many communities that I represent. That is why I have been urging DOT all year to implement comprehensive regulations to address these safety concerns.

We need a higher safety standard on new tank car orders and an aggressive phaseout of the old DOT-111s, which have no business transporting hazardous materials. The rail industry has taken voluntary steps to account for the DOT-111's inadequacies, but higher Federal standards are still needed.

We also need to make sure shippers and oil producers are properly handling, degasifying, and classifying hazardous materials, particularly volatile Bakken crude, before it is even loaded into a tank car.

I continue to urge DOT to make these much-needed, commonsense, and meaningful steps as quickly as possible. Inaction is inexcusable.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4923 is far from a perfect bill. I have serious concerns about some of the policy riders in the bill, and I am disappointed that it does not contain higher funding for renewable energy programs, but there are a number of important programs that receive the funding they desperately need. We all know that tough choices have to be made within the overall funding allocations, and I want to thank subcommittee Chair Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their hard work on the bill.

Earlier this year, I joined with 79 of our colleagues in support of strong funding for two important energy efficiencies programs at the Department of Energy: the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. These programs were underfunded in recent House appropriations bills, and I am pleased that this bill includes a significant improvement in the funding status for these two programs.

I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in expressing support for these programs to the committee earlier this year, and again, I thank the subcommittee chair and ranking member for responding to our requests for robust funding for these programs.

The Weatherization and State Energy Programs not only help our citizens to use energy more efficiently and effectively, these programs create and sustain jobs in communities across our great Nation. Energy efficiency improvements make homes more comfortable and keep utility costs affordable. They also create jobs for small business contractors in local communities.

The Weatherization Assistance Program enables seniors and veterans and persons with disabilities and families with low incomes to make energy efficiency improvements that they would otherwise not be able to afford. Lowering their energy bills frees up limited income they can use toward other essentials like food purchases and medicines. DOE estimates savings from weatherizing a home of over $400 per year. That is real money to many families who are struggling to make ends meet.

The State Energy Program enables our home States to develop and implement their own energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, projects that are tailored to address the very specific needs of our individual States.

The electricity sector is undergoing, as we all know, a significant transformation. The old model of one-way distribution from central generation points is giving way to systems with more distributed generation. Grids need to be upgraded and are becoming smarter; security issues need attention; and changing economics, fuel mix, and regulations are also catalyzing changes in this sector. State Energy Programs have an important role to play in this transformation, and support for these programs will be very helpful to States as they work through these changes.

On a separate issue, together with our colleagues Representative Owens and Representative Gibson, both of New York, we called for robust funding for DOE's Naval Reactors Program. The $1.2 billion included for naval reactors in this bill is critical to support three long-term projects: the Ohio class replacement, the spent fuel handling facility, and research and training reactor maintenance.

Over the past 5 years, Naval Reactors has been funded below requirements by over $450 million, including $151 million below the President's fiscal year '14 request. While I was disappointed to see Naval Reactors at $162 million below this year's request, I do thank the committee for including some very important report language.

The work done at the Kesselring site and the Knolls Atomic Power Lab is essential to our national security and our Navy's readiness. The training reactors at the Kesselring site in upstate New York are critical to training nuclear-qualified sailors. Earlier this year, unfunded maintenance and repair costs threatened to shut down one of the site's two reactors, which would have resulted in 450 fewer nuclear-qualified sailors in the fleet next year.

This bill requires significant funding for training reactor operations and maintenance at the Kesselring site and fully funds development of the Ohio replacement at KAPL, which cannot afford further delays. I hope that we can work together to make sure this critical program is fully funded moving forward to ensure that the Navy's nuclear-powered fleet has the resources, sailors, and research it needs to operate effectively and safely.

Finally, I am also pleased to see that the ARPA-E program receives robust funding in this bill. ARPA-E is an important program. Its mission to tackle big challenges in energy and move promising technologies forward into the market through strategic partnerships between government, universities, and businesses is vital to our long- term economic and energy security.

Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 365 on H.R. 4899, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

I appreciate the gentleman from California, our distinguished ranker on the committee and former chair, for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the energy bills before us this week do not lay out a roadmap for where we truly need to go; that is, to a future in which we have reduced our reliance on fossil fuels, greatly increased our focus on energy efficiency, and expanded our use of renewable energy.

H.R. 3301 and H.R. 6 are all about keeping us dependent upon fossil fuels, especially oil and gas. H.R. 3301 establishes a new process for considering and approving cross-border energy projects--pipelines and certainly transmission lines. In fact, it would be good to have a defined and predictable process for evaluating these projects and either approving or rejecting them within a reasonable timeframe.

Unfortunately, this bill is all about approving these projects quickly, with minimal consideration of their value to all sectors of our economy, the value to our consumers, and certainly the value to our environment.

The advocates for this bill and this infrastructure approval process sound as if we have never approved cross-border projects. But, in fact, we have many cross-border pipelines and transmission lines. This infrastructure, once in place, operates for decades. And all projects are not all equal in their impacts and are certainly not all equal in their size.

This bill does not require a sufficient analysis of the overall benefits of proposed projects. It is not enough to determine if any project is in our national security interests. Those are important interests, of course, but there are many others as well. The public, State and local governments, nonfossil fuel business interests, and others should be able to offer their views on a proposed project. This bill virtually cuts them out of that effort. You do not gain public support for infrastructure projects by cutting the public out of the decisionmaking.

H.R. 3301 does not provide for sufficient public input or sufficient weighing of overall national benefits and costs of these projects. Supporters of H.R. 3301 claim that this bill is not about the Keystone XL pipeline.

Well, H.R. 3301 is not a Keystone XL approval bill, per se, but that project would certainly be resurrected and approved if this bill were to become law.

This bill should not become law. It does not provide the type of thoughtful, comprehensive, and certainly inclusive process that should guide decisions that impact energy resources for many decades to come. I urge defeat of this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for his yielding, and I thank him for his work as ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, with H.R. 6, we are embarking on a policy that will lock us into higher and more volatile natural gas prices, and that will erode a key advantage we have for domestic manufacturing, that being low natural gas prices.

Natural gas is used widely throughout our economy. It is, indeed, a valuable commodity, and we should be setting policy to ensure that we use it efficiently and effectively. LNG terminals are expensive to build and require a lot of energy to operate. The contracts signed by exporters commit them to exporting LNG for anywhere from 10 to 20 years.

We already had a small taste of what happens if there is an unexpected event that increases domestic demand when ready supplies are low and exports have increased.

At a time when we are producing record amounts of propane, we had some of the worst shortages and price spikes we have seen in years. It was not entirely due to export increases, but it was definitely a factor. Many of our communities are paying the environmental costs of this natural gas boom. This bill is now going to deny them the benefits associated with sacrifices.

There are very real concerns that this legislation would harm economic growth, job creation, and American manufacturing. This bill will not allow the adequate consideration of the public interest, including impacts on United States' consumers and manufacturers, before granting the approval of natural gas exports to countries with which we do not have a free trade agreement.

In fact, because we do have free trade agreements with a number of countries, exports of LNG to them do not require any public interest analysis. The DOE has approved billions of cubic feet to be exported to nations with which we have free trade agreements and to others as well.

We are in the midst of a manufacturing renaissance due, in part, to an abundance of affordable domestic natural gas. We have seen 12 consecutive months of growth in the manufacturing sector and a growing trend of the reshoring of jobs back to the United States.

Why would we want to turn that trend around?

Exports on the scale that this legislation would enable will raise domestic natural gas and electricity prices for every American and undermine our manufacturing competitiveness.

The United States' natural gas prices are less than one-half of Europe's and one-third less than in places like Japan and South Korea. The integration of the United States' and Asia's natural gas markets would lead to increases in prices for consumers and businesses, undoing the economic conditions that have led to the recent growth in American manufacturing.

The industrial sector represents some 22 percent of American energy use, with natural gas being the single largest input. Energy is consumed in the industrial sector for a wide range of purposes--from processing to heating, cooling, and as feedstocks to produce non-energy products.

The chemicals, pulp and paper, iron and steel, refining, and nonmetallic minerals industries account for about one-half of all energy used in this sector.

These industries alone represent millions of American jobs. That is why I am so concerned that the Energy Information Administration, the EIA, found that increased natural gas exports will ``lead to increased natural gas prices,'' and ``larger export levels lead to larger domestic price increases.''

The EIA looked specifically at the potential impact of these price increases on United States' manufacturers, and it found that a high level of LNG exports could increase natural gas costs for the industrial sector by between 5 and 27 percent annually.

The amendment I offered to the Rules Committee, an amendment which was not made in order, would have prevented section 2 of this bill from taking effect until there would be a determination that LNG exports would not adversely impact the competitiveness of the United States' manufacturing community.

American employers are struggling to compete in this global economy, especially with the jobs in the manufacturing sector. Domestic manufacturers are competing with countries that have low wages, limited environmental and worker protections, and manipulated currencies. Low- priced, abundant natural gas is a competitive advantage for domestic manufacturers. Let's not give that up.

This Congress has an obligation to prevent the loss of American manufacturing jobs. The revitalization of the American manufacturing industry and the bringing back of quality jobs from overseas should be the cornerstone of our efforts in Washington in order to help the private sector thrive and to put our people back to work.

This bill is only good for the natural gas-producing industry, and its increased benefits will be coming at everyone else's expense.

With that, I urge the defeat of this bill.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, in the last 5 years, moving crude oil by train has grown exponentially from a virtually nonexistent industry to a booming one with no signs of slowing down; but after a number of high-profile derailments, the need for increased safety regulations on shipping hazardous materials via rail could not be clearer.

Last week, I had the privilege of attending a first responder training course that was focused on crude oil trains at the Port of Albany, which has become a major hub for crude oil shipments, processing more than 40,000 carloads last year. I know rail carriers and emergency planners are taking it upon themselves to prepare for handling hazardous materials in increased volumes, but regulatory steps are also needed.

We need a comprehensive approach to address this issue, including expanding route planning and selection requirements, requiring response plans for rail carriers and ensuring shippers and rail carriers are testing and classifying their shipments appropriately. Many of these suggestions have been recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Many of the reforms I support are common sense. For example, comprehensive oil spill response plans are currently required for oil shipments greater than 1,000 barrels per tank car, but most tank cars only hold 700 barrels; therefore, trains, some with as many as 120 cars that are carrying crude oil, are not required to have comprehensive response plans because of this outdated threshold. Among other safety issues, tank car safety, particularly in regard to the DOT-111s, is a major concern for many of my constituents.

Every day, trains transporting Bakken crude oil move and idle next to public housing and the highway near Albany's South End before entering the Port of Albany. Everyone agrees--railroads, suppliers and the NTSB, to name a few--that we need a higher safety standard on new tank car orders and an aggressive phaseout or retrofit of the old DOT-111s, which have no business transporting hazardous materials. Only 14,000 of 92,000 DOT-111 tank cars are currently built to the latest industry standards. The remaining 78,000 have demonstrated that they are prone to splitting open during derailments.

The rail industry has taken meaningful and voluntary steps to account for the DOT-111s' inadequacies, including raising the industry standard for cars built after October of 2011, but we need higher Federal standards. This is long overdue, and DOT must act.

I know this is an issue my good friend from New York, Ranking Member Lowey, is passionate about as well. Earlier this year, we sent a letter to Secretary Foxx, urging him to move forward with a rulemaking process that includes phasing out the DOT-111s. We should harmonize our regulations with Canada's already announced plan, which includes a 3- year phaseout or retrofit of DOT-111s. Just this morning, I had the opportunity to speak with Secretary Foxx about DOT's rulemaking process. I know this is a top priority for him, and I have been assured that it is moving forward aggressively. I encourage a speedy but appropriate resolution.

I also appreciate that the chair included language urging a comprehensive approach to rail safety. The language directs the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to update emergency spill response planning thresholds and to finalize a rule on tank cars by the end of this fiscal year. The bill also fully funds the President's request for FRA's safety and operations account and PHMSA's hazardous materials account.

Finally, the manager's amendment, during the full committee markup, designated some funds to hire additional safety staff to monitor routing and to make safety improvements on grade crossings that carry energy products. This, indeed, is a positive step. However, I would have preferred the inclusion of $40 million, as in the President's budget request, to establish a safe transportation of energy products fund within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation in order to support prevention and response activities.

Aside from the crude-by-rail issues, I understand the challenges of the current funding allocations, but I must strongly oppose this bill's shortfalls in numerous infrastructure and transit accounts. The FTA's Capital Investment Grant program is $809 million below the request. Amtrak's capital grants are cut by $200 million, and TIGER only receives $100 million, shamefully shortfalling what we need.

It is my hope that we can improve this bill during conference, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to include appropriate levels for underfunded programs while building upon this bill's rail safety provisions.

Again, I want to thank Chairmen Rogers and Latham and Ranking Members Lowey and Pastor for their attention to this critical rail safety issue.

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

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, this bill is providing reasonable levels of funding for research and development to the National Science Foundation and NASA, but in the NOAA accounts, climate research is singled out for major cuts below last year's spending.

It seems there are a number of us who believe that we can improve weather forecasting without doing climate research. This simply is not the case.

The distinction between weather and climate is created by the time period we define to examine the temperature, precipitation, humidity, and other atmospheric phenomena we are experiencing.

As our society and our economy have become more advanced, more interconnected, and more global, we increasingly operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. For better or worse, we assume that everything can and is operating all the time. Well, often because of weather conditions, that assumption is challenged. Travel delays in the airline industry alone due to weather events can result in multibillion-dollar losses.

Phenomena such as droughts and floods and fires are not merely single weather events. Their probability of occurrence, duration, and intensity is a function of climactic factors that can only be understood and predicted if we can better understand short-, medium-, and long-term climate trends.

I would note that the bill before us retains funding for the National Drought Information System. That is good news. But by cutting the climate research that drives improvements in the information delivered through this system, we are stifling the potential for this tool to provide better information to farmers, to ranchers, water managers, energy utilities, and the many other businesses, communities, and citizens who require dependable, adequate water supplies.

It was climate research that led to our much-improved understanding of the El Nino and La Nina cycles that drive predictable changes in weather. As a result, farmers are able to adjust crop varieties or practices to prevent losses.

We are spending an increasing amount of money every year on relieving drought, fighting forest fires, and on relieving disasters from tornadoes, hurricanes, and flood events. Instead of cutting climate research funds, we

should be expanding them. Instead, this Congress continues to deny what is all too obvious to many of our citizens and to those of other nations: that climate change is underway.

Some of our agricultural systems, transportation systems, and essential infrastructure are at risk. We can adapt. We can redesign and rebuild infrastructure, but we need to know where to concentrate our efforts and what type of adaptations will be necessary. We need to have a better understanding of the rate of change that we will experience. Climate research is providing that understanding.

In February last year, the Government Accountability Office added the financial risk of climate change to its High Risk List. This past February, GAO testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs about the fiscal liability associated with weather and climactic disasters.

GAO's recent work on this topic found that the number of disaster declarations increased from 65 in 2004 to 98 in 2011. The financial risk from the two primary Federal insurance programs--National Flood Insurance Program and the Federal Crop Insurance Program--are over $1 trillion. We paid over $60 billion on Hurricane Sandy recovery alone. And these are only the financial costs.

Hurricanes Irene and Lee swept through my district in 2012. I saw firsthand the suffering caused by these storms. The loss of human lives and the destruction of homes and communities exact a terrible cost on those who experience these devastating events.

We should be doing much more to spare our citizens from these experiences. With financial exposure of over $1 trillion and the known risks to individuals, communities, businesses, and infrastructure from climate and weather, it is absurd to claim that we are saving money by cutting $37 million from these programs.

We must do our part to ensure that future generations have the opportunities that our parents and grandparents secured for us. Past generations built this Nation through their willingness to tackling the challenges of their time, by believing in the future of this Nation, and by investing in it.

Climate change is real, and it will not have less impact if we pretend it isn't happening. We must stop ignoring this problem. We can choose to deny. We can bury our heads in the sand. When that sand is washed away, however, by climate change, it is over.

Climate research is vital to our national security, our food security, our economic security, and to our future as a Nation. We should continue this important research effort and use the knowledge gained from it to inform and implement an adaptive strategy.

With that, I urge support for this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Well, we all love Louise Slaughter. We extend our condolences for the loss of her beloved Bob, who was part of this institution. He was here so much and intellectually invested himself in the business of the House.

Representative Garamendi, let me thank you for bringing us together in such a meaningful and bipartisan-spirited way to address the issue of Alzheimer's disease.

It is my honor to sponsor the measure, the Alzheimer's Accountability Act, with Representative Guthrie. Alzheimer's knows no boundaries-- political, geographic, age, whatever. It is so important for us to come together in a spirit of unity and support for the Alzheimer's community.

Recently, I joined the many advocates that came to the Hill here in Washington from around the country. Around a thousand people gathered for a breakfast. I heard of folks being diagnosed in their twenties. I heard of a gentleman diagnosed in his thirties and who died in his forties. It seems to be penetrating deeper and deeper into the younger age category.

So it is important for us to make an all-out effort to invest in research and respite care and all sorts of developments that respond to the individuals and families who live with Alzheimer's on a day-to-day basis.

The Alzheimer's Accountability Act is, I think, is so sound an approach because it addresses a professionally inspired budget that will have the scientists, the clinicians, those most in the front lines of addressing Alzheimer's, and their patients, forecasting what the needs are. As you know, we have set up a national project that requires planning from now to the year 2025.

I think what is so good about the measure introduced by Representative Guthrie and myself is that it will require this professional judgment that will name the pricetag for each year as we go to 2025. It won't be left to us as a political force, but rather to the clinical health care provider community that will have the best estimates of what is needed.

As I gather at the town halls that we have so that we can know of the progress or lack thereof, you hear heart-wrenching stories. People tell you they go to work because their spouse is struggling with Alzheimer's. They search employment so as to pull themselves out of that day-to-day routine because it is wearing on their relationship. And they spend every dollar earned to go toward respite. But they do it to save their relationship.

People have acknowledged to me that they mourn twice. First, when the diagnosis happens and they have lost their loved one somewhat. They lost their personality or whatever. And then they mourn again with the physical departure.

And others have said to me--one who comes to mind, a high school buddy--My husband knows my voice; he doesn't know my name.

It doesn't get more heart-wrenching than that.

So this is an immediate need, a priority, an urgency. Let's go forward and let's in a bipartisan-spirited way, bicameral, and working with the executive branch, get it done. Let's make certain the planning is there, that the resources are there for research, for respite care, for the entire continuum of services that are required so as to address the dignity and deliver hope to the doorsteps of individuals and families who face this constant struggle, who live with it on a daily basis and who have really seen the entire persona be lost in their mid.

So it is an honor to be on the floor this evening with both of you gentleman and to work with you in tandem, in partnership, in a spirited way to make things happen.

More than a little.

Representative Garamendi, as Representative Guthrie said, we are at the $200 billion-plus mark today. And the tragedy of the situation is that for every dollar spent on Alzheimer's today, less than a penny of every dollar is spent on research to find a cure.

We have to do better than that. The hope and the miracle lies in research. We have trained clinicians, we have a medical community that is raring to go. We need to invest in a far more significant way. It was a message we heard from our advocates when they came to the Hill.

Again, I think it goes without saying that we all commit to that research budget.

So, again, it was an honor to join you this evening in this very special caucus.

Mr. Speaker, May is Mental Health Month, a month where we step up our efforts to raise awareness for mental health and work to remove the stigma of seeking help for mental illness.

This issue is very close to my heart, as I worked in the New York State Assembly to pass Timothy's Law, which provides parity in mental health coverage in my home State.

We work in a very divided environment here, Mr. Speaker, in Washington, but one of the few things I believe we can all agree on is the need to focus more on individuals and families that struggle with mental illness. That means providing better resources, more robust programs, enhanced coordination, and a more comprehensive mental health national program.

Mental illness affects all ages, all races, tax brackets, and political ideologies, and our response to mental illness must be as comprehensive as the group of people it affects. We can only do this by joining together, reflecting in our budget our commitment to overcoming the challenges mental illnesses pose, and passing the Strengthening Mental Health in Our Communities Act, legislation that my colleagues and I introduced just today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the Union College Dutchmen hockey team and congratulate its players on winning their first NCAA Division I national championship.

The Dutchmen wrapped up a dream season on April 12, defeating Minnesota by a score of 7-4 in the finals of the Frozen Four. Union College, a school of just 2,200 students from Schenectady with a stress on academic excellence, a college that doesn't even give out athletic scholarships, overcame the Big 10 giant to become national champions.

The Union Dutchmen are a reminder that it does not matter how big you are or whether the average person can pronounce the city you represent; persistence, selflessness, and willpower can achieve great things.

From Schenectady, that lights and hauls the world, to the Union hockey team that lit up the scoreboard and hauled the campus into national attention, I thank the Union hockey program, its players, their parents, head coach Rick Bennett, President Ainlay, his administration, faculty, and staff for inspiring us all with an unforgettable season.

Go, Dutchmen.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Fulton- Montgomery Community College on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

Since its founding, the number of students attending the college has grown from 350 to today's population of 2,850--remarkable growth. These students are now becoming specialists in one of 40 academic programs, including business, electrical technology, media communication, nursing, radiologic technology, and one in which I have had direct involvement, clean room science.

Under the current leadership of President Dusty Swanger--and I must add, he is a very effective leader and a much-respected leader--FMCC is the region's partner for quality, accessible higher education, economic development, and cultural and intellectual enrichment.

Although the institution officially turned 50 in September, this is truly a year of celebration as the school continues to grow and boost our communities in the greater capital region of New York.

Again, I congratulate the FMCC administration, faculty, support staff, and students for their hard work each and every day, which makes us very proud.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair and ranking member of our Budget Committee for the opportunity to share some thoughts.

Mixed messaging--it really grips the American public. Washington Republicans are presenting their budget and proclaiming that we are about reducing the debt and reducing the deficit. We are concerned about our children, we are concerned about our grandchildren.

At the same time, the mixed message is to the crowd that is above a million dollar threshold, income threshold: We have money for you we are going to spend for you. We are so concerned about the debt and the deficit that needs to be reduced, but we will spend on you. We will offer you an average $200,000 tax break, so allow us to spend on you.

Somehow the children and the grandchildren are not a worry then. So the mixed messaging on this one is amazing.

Over the last couple of days, I have had the opportunity to either meet in the office or in group sessions or in large gatherings here in Washington with a number of advocates who are concerned about investments that need to be made in this Federal budget.

There is the Alzheimer's Association that is imploring us to find a cure, to invest in research. Washington Republicans say: no, we need to spend on tax cuts for the wealthy, and we need to use your funds to reduce the debt and the deficit.

Washington Republicans will tell our college-bound students who need an affordable path to that higher ed opportunity that: we can't spend on you or invest in you, we need to spend on tax cuts for the wealthy.

Washington Republicans will sweep the savings and the revenues of the Affordable Care Act and proclaim to the senior community that: we are now repealing the Affordable Care Act, all of the benefits that were there for you are now removed.

Washington Republicans will tell a group that I met with about water infrastructure needs: we can't spend on you because we need to spend on tax cuts for the wealthy.

This is a mixed message that is disingenuous.

Mr. Chair, I think we should be real with the American public. We either stand for spending or we don't. We want to address the debt and deficit or we don't. We believe in investment, as the Democratic minority in this House believes, that will grow the economy and provide a greater opportunity for jobs.

There is this path to prosperity for a few that the Republicans have put together with their budget. I suggest that we look at a highway for hope that has been advanced by the Democrats in the House that invests in Alzheimer's research, higher ed opportunities, infrastructure for this Nation, and a continuation of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in recognition of the accomplishments of the painters that are so prominent that are part of the Hudson River School of painting, and I do want to thank our colleague, Representative Engel, the gentleman from New York, for hosting this Special Order on the House floor to honor the 19th century Hudson River School of painting.

There are so many who cherish this institution, including, as was just mentioned, our former colleague, Representative Maurice Hinchey, who I see seated in the gallery, along with his family.

Certainly, he represented the Hudson River Valley region of New York in such fine fashion and with a great appreciation for the arts and for cultural education.

The school is also cherished by individuals like Barnabas McHenry who, as chair of the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, understands the value of this great school; and Greg Wyatt who, as you have seen, is a sculptor and has produced great work as director of the Academy of Art, also at Newington-Cropsey Foundation, and at Hastings-on-Hudson; and so many who believe in the message that is sent forth by this great institution.

The Hudson River School of painting was the first uniquely American style of painting. The school's style of painting was popularized in the 1820s and lasted for much of the 19th century. You already heard many of the prominent painters listed by Representative Engel in his comments. Today, we are here to honor their contribution to our region, to our State of New York, and to this Nation.

The Hudson River School of painting was founded in upstate New York in the Hudson River Valley and the nearby Catskill Mountains. The Hudson River School's landscapes capture the natural and rural beauty of my home State of New York on canvas, including the majestic and mighty waters of that great region.

The Hudson River Valley has always had a special importance for our Nation. It was the pathway for early settlers to begin the westward movement that expanded our Nation's borders. To this day, we celebrate the Hudson River School of painting across the country and continue to do so in areas like Albany, New York, the capital region of New York.

At the Albany Institute of History and Art, one of the oldest museums in the country, many of the works from the Hudson River School artists are on display. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting the institute of history and art and made certain that I stopped by to view the several paintings that are on display by these magnificent artists.

One of the paintings that caught my eye and is near and dear to many is that of Jasper Cropsey's ``Dawn of Morning, Lake George,'' which is pictured here beside me and captures the untouched beauty of Lake George.

Although the painting illuminates a quieter and distant time, many of the residents of the capital region continue to visit and enjoy the beauty of Lake George today.

Lake George is the largest lake in the Adirondacks and is within the Adirondacks State Park Preserve in upstate New York. The Adirondacks Preserve was established in 1892 by the State of New York and covers more than 6 million acres of protected areas.

Cropsey's ``Dawn of Morning, Lake George'' captures the serenity that he imagined once existed and reminds us of the spectacular sight of nature, including our trees, the mountains, and the waters.

In addition to capturing the beauty of New York, over time, the Hudson River School artists began traveling more widely, eventually painting scenes throughout New England, the American West, Western Europe, north Africa, the Middle East, and South America.

The paintings of the American West were particularly popular. These realistic scenes of what was then, essentially, foreign land to most of the American people sparked the imagination and echoed the voices of the growing grassroots conservation movement, illustrating the need to preserve the wonders of our natural American landscape.

In fact, many landscapes of the Hudson River School were used to support the creation of the first national parks. Inspired in part by these paintings, the National Park System has been a significant part of our environmental inheritance, protecting some of America's most iconic and majestic places. I have always believed that our national parks embody the history and heritage that make America unique.

Personally, I grew up in Amsterdam, New York, in the heart of the scenic Mohawk Valley of New York. My upbringing instilled in me a strong concern for the health of our environment and an appreciation for the delicacy of natural ecosystems and our native wildlife.

As someone who believes that we must leave our children and grandchildren with a rich and enduring environmental inheritance, I am especially grateful for the role that the Hudson River School of painting served and will continue to serve in inspiring our Nation to preserve our land and to preserve our water.

For many generations to come, the American people will have the opportunity to view these breathtaking paintings and will be reminded why we must continue to preserve America's richness of natural beauty.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by urging our colleagues and the public to recognize the Hudson River School of painting and the legacy forged by its artists. While the school has many ties to my home State and our capital region of New York, we can all appreciate the contributions made to this mighty Nation.

I would also like to thank our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), for his admirable work to promote and honor the Hudson River School of painting. Again, I thank him for this opportunity to proclaim the greatness of this great school of artists.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I now yield to our next speaker, the Representative from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize the Scotia- Glenville High School boys' basketball team for winning the New York State class A high school State championship on its way to becoming New York State federation cup champions. These young men completed one of the best seasons in section 2 and New York State basketball history.

Led by Coach Jim Giammettei, the Scotia-Glenville Tartans not only became State champions but amassed a perfect 27-0 record on its way to becoming the best of the public, private, and independent institutions in New York State.

These students will take this exemplary leadership and teamwork with them to face future challenges as they continue to make our communities and capital region of New York proud.

Again, I congratulate the Scotia-Glenville Tartans on a perfect season and this remarkable achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Women's History Month. On March 13, my colleagues joined together on the House floor to call for the passage of H.R. 863, which would call for a commission to study the potential creation of a national women's history museum in our Nation's Capital.

They discussed the critical need for the museum and recognized the many women who have shaped our Nation. My colleagues are historic women in their own right. Today, I am proud to join them in voicing my support for H.R. 863.

H.R. 863 would establish a commission to study and recommend a plan of action for the establishment and maintenance of a national women's history museum here in Washington, D.C.

The National Women's History Museum will be the first of its kind to celebrate women's history and women's contributions to the United States. It will not cost the Federal Government a dime since every cent will be privately raised.

Why is it necessary? Well, from our Nation's founding, women have played a crucial role, providing numerous contributions to help create and reinforce this great foundation of our Nation. Women have changed the course of history, and we are long overdue in celebrating and recognizing them and their accomplishments.

Women's history is largely missing from textbooks, from memorials, from museum exhibits, and from many other venues. Of the 210 statues in the United States Capitol, only nine are of female leaders.

Less than 5 percent of the 2,400 national historic landmarks chronicle women's achievement, and a recent survey of some 18 history textbooks

found that only 10 percent of the individuals identified in the text were women.

What about New York and its role--my home State? Well, the women's suffrage movement had its roots in upstate New York that I proudly represent. Certainly, the start of what would become a nationwide movement for women's rights in the United States was staked in Seneca Falls, New York, and began in 1848.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony, all who have made their voices heard for the empowerment of women, claim New York as their home State. Let's make sure their stories continue to be told.

Countless outstanding women in the capital region have stories that every American should know. Let me cite one, Shirley Ann Jackson, in the capital region of New York that I represent.

Shirley Ann Jackson--Dr. Jackson, President Jackson of RPI--is a renowned American physicist, who in 1973 graduated from MIT with a Ph.D. in theoretical elementary particle physics, becoming the very first African American woman to receive a Ph.D. in MIT's history.

She currently serves as President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, or RPI, and she continues to advocate on behalf of women and minorities in the sciences. Her story should be told.

There are countless stories that need to be told. I will continue to proudly support the creation of a national women's history museum and