Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, State governments, institutions, businesses and private individuals are organizing to meet the challenges and opportunities of climate change.

For example, experts from New York State's land-grant college, Cornell University, have partnered with others at McGill University in Montreal and the private sector to define the needs of the region's agricultural sector in a warmer climate. Farmers will need new plant varieties. The longer growing season will open possibilities for growing new crops. The timing of planting and fertilizing will change.

Pest management will, indeed, be different. Climate change can be approached with a positive perspective for agriculture, but only if we plan now to take advantage of new opportunities and prepare for the transition.

So where are we, as a body, on this issue? We should be talking climate change and taking it into account as we move a new 5-year farm bill forward. We should be taking action to adapt our infrastructure and economy to these changes. But there is no discussion or action on this crucial issue.

Change is underway. We have little time to lose. We can meet this challenge, slow down the rate of change, adapt to the new conditions and take advantage of new opportunities, but only if we begin today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable individual and prolific inventor whose pioneering research into medical imaging has helped to transform modern day medicine. Dr. Trifon Laskaris, a Chief Scientist at General Electric's Global Research Center, was recently awarded his 200th U.S. patent--a benchmark previously reached by only one other GE researcher--the inventor of the light bulb and founder of the company's research center, Thomas Edison.

For the past four decades, Dr. Laskaris has worked at GE Global Research on technology to advance magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI. He has spent much of his career directing GE's research into superconducting magnets. It is these high-power magnets that make MRI possible. Suffice it to say that without the work of Dr. Laskaris and his team, MRI would not be where it is today--a vital diagnostic tool used in hospitals around the world. There is no telling how many millions of people are leading healthier lives today because of the technology that Dr. Laskaris developed.

New York's Capital Region has a rich history as a hub for cutting- edge science and technology. From the birth of General Electric more than 120 years ago, to the emergence of ``Tech Valley'' as a center for nanotechnology research and development, upstate New York continues to be at the forefront of invention and innovation that is making America and the world a better place. Dr. Laskaris is an inspiration to us all, and his achievement is a testament to the fruits that creativity and steadfast pursuit of technological advancement can bear.

I congratulate Dr. Trifon Laskaris on this milestone achievement and, on behalf of this body and the citizens of the 20th District of New York, I thank him for his lifelong dedication to scientific research in the service of humanity.

I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable individual and prolific inventor whose pioneering research into medical imaging has helped to transform modern-day medicine.

Dr. Trifon Laskaris, a chief scientist at General Electric's Global Research Center, was recently awarded his 200th United States patent. It is a benchmark previously reached by only one other GE researcher-- the inventor of the lightbulb and founder of the company's research center, Thomas Edison.

For the past four decades, Dr. Laskaris has worked at GE Global Research on technology to advance magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI. Without the work of Dr. Laskaris and his team, MRI would not be where it is today--a vital diagnostic tool used in hospitals around the world. There is no telling how many millions of people are leading healthier lives today because of the technology that Dr. Laskaris developed.

I congratulate Dr. Trifon Laskaris on this milestone achievement; and on behalf of this body and the citizens of the 20th Congressional District of New York, I thank him for his lifelong dedication to scientific research in the service of humanity.

Mr. Speaker, as hurricane season begins this week, there is no better time for Congress to refocus its efforts on better protecting our coastline communities and the more than 123 million people that live in them from extreme weather events.

In the wake of hurricanes like Katrina, Rita, Sandy, and Irene, which took lives and destroyed property in my district, extreme weather preparedness should be an issue that both

Democrats and Republicans support now more than ever.

Since 2011, extreme weather episodes have cost $188 billion in property destruction, business closures, and crop damages. Even worse, these storms have taken the lives of 1,107 Americans.

There is ample evidence to believe that this trend of increased extreme weather, which has grown exponentially since 2000, will only continue to get worse. Just today we heard about the widest tornado recorded in United States history at 2.6 miles wide and winds of 296 miles per hour.

We need to ask ourselves: Do we address the climate change problem now or do we continue to ignore future threats, making preventable disasters more and more costly with each passing year of inaction?

As the cochair of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition in the House of Representatives, I suggest we act now.

Representative Garamendi, thank you for leading us in this hour discussion focusing on jobs--from a manufacturing sector, jobs from an investment. They come about in an investment in research, R&D, and they come about through innovation.

We have talked about this many times on this floor, that we come from districts that have that keen sense of vision about how to do it smarter, which can be that difference in the competitive edge that our businesses require in an international marketplace.

What I like about the investment through this package, Make It in America, is an across-the-board holistic approach, incentives that provide everything from encouragement to the local industries to retrofit and rebuild their manufacturing processes; to investment in the workforce, making certain that those cutting-edge skills and trades are being developed within our workers, making certain that we have that human infrastructure up and ready to go so as to be robustly competitive; and also talking about the investment in this ideas economy, which speaks to the sophistication of our American society. The intellectual capacity that is harnessed to produce jobs is an awesome measure that allows us to maintain a great bit of hope that we can robustly respond to the needs of today's economy, an international economy, and be a winning agent out there. And it happens with this investment. That's how we grow jobs.

Absolutely. I was at the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and we saw what public-private matches were about. We were able to deal with the ideas economy. We came up with new ways to harness energy, to create energy efficiency in the outcome, and by so doing, innovation and research equals jobs, good-paying jobs that allow us, again, to have that cutting edge of cleverness, of having a thoughtful way to do things. The smart factor can win those contracts on an international scale. So I'm thrilled about what we can do through research.

Sure. The wordsmithing that you talk about is so critical. The addition of language that clarifies or specifically states ``made in America'' as an outcome, very critical to the legislation. And two things were happening. The wordsmithing didn't happen as tenderly as it should have for American workers, but there was also a disinvestment in manufacturing as a sector of our economy. And agriculture was ignored. Manufacturing was ignored.

Service sector was paid attention to; and then more narrowly, financial services got great attention. But we know that story: turn your back as government, say go function as you choose, and create derivatives to avoid government overview and avoid the watchdog. And we saw trillions lost to American households because of that failure.

Here there's a conscious attempt to say, no, we're not going to pay to have you ship jobs offshore. Yes, we're going to pay to have you bring them back. Yes, we're going to invest in workers. Yes, we're going to invest in research to develop new processes.

I have a bill that deals with energy efficiency that allows for us to enhance the efficiency of turbines that are being produced in Schenectady, that are being made in Schenectady at GE, and then exported to the markets around the world.

Routinely, I am showcasing manufacturing in my district so that the media, as a partner, can showcase what's happening right in our very neighborhoods, and that the story fully, complete and told to everyone, is that we're also exporting from Tech Valley, New York. That is so important for people to know, and we need to enhance that.

We need to provide for the reinforcement, the underpinning of support through language in bills, resources that are attached to various appropriations bills, and pointing a focus on American manufacturing.

I saw what happened through an incubator program at RPI, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in my district, where a local manufacturer was able to revisit his process, his manufacturing process. They upgraded it, went to a community college in the district, Hudson Valley Community College, which trained the workers from this facility how to use this new automated piece; and now they've added workers who are specifically trained on this automated concept. They're winning contracts, and Kintz Plastics in Schoharie, New York, in the upstate New York region, a rural county setting, by the way, is strengthened by all that investment.

That's what it takes. It's a focus, laser-sharp focus on how to meet the various elements of the equation that will take us to a winning effort. And it's straightforward, it's thought out, it's not mindless.

Instead of issues of ignoring manufacturing, providing for sequestration that automatically cuts programs where there ought to be investment, let's move forward with a sound budget. Let's move forward with an agenda that produces jobs.

The President has introduced a package that calls for a budget that's real, that displaces sequestration. He knows of the damage that that would do to the economy and to the investment in manufacturing that is needed now in a very targeted way.

So this is a thoughtful, mindful, analytical, academically driven agenda that really speaks to the needs of all sorts of efficiency operations, turbines that will be built to better scale, that will allow for better outcomes and save us, in the process, save jobs in the process, grow jobs, and then provide for more productivity on the local scene.

So, I think it's incredibly successful when we just apply simple logic to the situation.

Sure. Even the data compilation there, the research that's done with the weather patterns, putting together data that's compiled that are very compelling bits of information allow us to grow back smarter. If we're just going to rebuild after the damages of these consequences of Mother Nature----

Yes. And we have to be real about this. We have to take into mind and heart the situations out there. And to just simply rebuild and ignore the facts, if there's increased precipitation over the last 20 years, markedly so, discernibly speaking to us, we need to move forward accordingly. And so there should be retrofits that are responding to the data.

You don't rebuild a bridge to the same span and same height if the water volume is growing exponentially. We have combined heat and power situations that were impacted or survived the consequences of the disaster of Superstorm Sandy. Should we revisit how we rebuild some of the electric infrastructure?

So there are calls here that challenge us, that require us to do it more wisely, to do it more effectively, and to do it with intelligent approaches that allow us to use the innovative approaches that are available.

I watch what is being designed here by so many of the startup industries that are taking into account climate change, taking into account the various elements that are impacting us, causing coastal areas on your coast, on my coast of this country, where people need to rebuild in a clever way and in a way that's sensitive to the demands of the system. And the threshold years out there by which we need to respond to climate change are quickly approaching us. Some suggest as early as 2017. Others will stretch it to 2020. Regardless, that is around the corner. And the call to order here is to be sophisticated in the approach. Go forward, do it with science, do it with intellect, do it academically, so that we can grow jobs that are going to respond to the pressures out there that are bearing down upon us and are undeniable. Let's get the stuff done.

Recently, I went to several college graduations in my district. And to see the technical strength walking across that stage. From doctorates to master's degrees to bachelor's degrees, there is great talent being released out there. Let's put it to work so this Nation can build upon that pioneer spirit that has always driven us. There's just such great opportunity here. And if you believe that all the products ever required by humankind have been conceived, prototyped, developed, manufactured, and sold, the story is over. But we know better than that. Products are being developed as we speak. And the challenge to a sophisticated society such as ours, it's okay. Maybe some of those manufactured goods that you did a century ago are now replaced by some new, precision-oriented, heavy-duty ideas reformulation that really allows us to be clever in the attempt.

Absolutely. When you talk about roads and bridges, my home county of Montgomery, New York, in my district, was host to a terrible bridge collapse. We commemorated in 2012 the 25th anniversary of the collapse of a thruway bridge that took several lives. That was a stark reminder 25, 26 years ago. We have only accumulated more concern for deficiencies.

So it's roads and bridges. It's rail, as you made mention. But it's also telecommunications and utilities. You look at a system that was engineered to be a monopoly, serving regions of energy needs for people, and then with deregulation came the wheeling of electrons from region to region, State to State, nation to nation. You had Canada wheeling in electrons to New York State. We need to upgrade the system. The interconnection devices need to be upgraded. There's new technology. You get more efficiency, less line loss. These are the things that are smart. And we're asking with this package that we've talked about here tonight, let's be smart. Let's respect the hard- earned tax dollars that are under our stewardship.

In August of 2003, I was serving in State government in New York when we had a major collapse of the system that was driven by transmission. An outage in Ohio triggered a collapse into New York. So Ohio put out the lights on Broadway in New York City. And this was long-term in its consequences. Great economic loss, great challenge to us. In the midst of homeland security, anti-terrorist sentiment, you had a glaring, gaping vulnerability for terrorist minds to see that weakness.

We need to invest in the infrastructure. So an infrastructure bank bill, you're absolutely right, is a tremendously strong, powerful way to leverage public-private sector matches to extend the opportunities, to grow the opportunities to make investments in all sorts of infrastructure.

I live in one of the oldest sections of the country. Our water-sewer systems are antiquated. Our utility sectors are very, very old.

The upgrades that are required, the technology that can be invested, the cutting-edge improvements that are part and parcel to that solution, these are incredible opportunities for us to strengthen the outcome for businesses. We have business coming in to upstate New York that, in one case, Global Foundries, represents some of the greatest job growth in the world for chip manufacturing. Are they energy intensive? You better believe they are. Do we need state-of-the-art hookups? Do we need reliability and predictability in that capacity that's delivered? Absolutely. So we know what the needs of business happen to be. We know how best to respond to that. We do it through clever, public, progressive policy that enables us to see the worthiness of investment.

Belt tightening, we've talked about this before--waste, inefficiency, fraud, outmoded programs undone. We belt tighten. But that is cut where you can so that you invest where you must. And that mantra should guide us: cut where you can so you invest where you must.

And the infrastructure requires our response. You need to move freight. You need to move workers. You need to have safety addressed, public safety addressed. I saw the consequences. I saw the deaths that came from the tragic collapse of a thruway bridge in upstate New York 26 years ago. That should not be repeated. That sort of tragedy should be avoided with any clever cost being assumed. And here we're asking simply to put people to work.

This is not just spending money. It's investing in workers that will make for a stronger outcome, and it provides for state-of-art opportunities. And that's where the business partnership is with this country. If you're going to sit there and say we're just going to cut our way to prosperity, cut our way to deficit reduction, and cut our way to job growth, it's not going to happen that way.

Well, you talk about the challenges that we have out there, and you've listed what I think is a very aggressive agenda but a doable agenda; and I think to reinforce the doability

of it, the acceptability of it, perhaps we just need to recall some of our most golden moments in American history when we were challenged, when there was a need to respond with boldness, with vision, and with courage. We did it.

My district is the donor area in a large way to the Erie Canal system. You talk about ports. It grew a port out of a little town called New York. It was that port of entry that then allowed for the shipping of goods up the Hudson into the Mohawk, into the Erie Canal system, a system that was brought about under tough times. The proponents of the canal said, Look, we're going to do this; it's a tough time, but let's invest.

Did that prove successful? You'd better believe it. It sparked the westward movement and an industrial revolution, gave birth to a necklace of communities called mill towns. Mill towns became the powerful epicenters of invention and innovation.

When President Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, led this Nation out of its worst economic crunch, it was about investing in America, putting people to work and developing projects that were essential to our hopeful tomorrow. It put a lot of people to work. It pulled us out of the doldrums of the Depression and allowed us to rise from the situation and provide, again, hope for this Nation.

President Eisenhower, understanding that in some tough times we needed to develop an interstate system for our highway network because, again, it was transporting and shipping of goods and we needed to modernize and advance what was best for America, that golden moment of our history should speak to us.

Certainly, President Kennedy picked up on that Sputnik moment when we dusted off our backside and said, Never again. He called us together as a nation, a rather youthful President, saying, We're going to win this global race on space. We're going to do it, because with passionate resolve, we're going to say ``yes'' to the investments required so as to stake that American flag as the first flag onto the surface of the Moon, winning that race, that global race on space. And we did it because we invested, we believed, and we resolved with passion and worked together as a nation.

So, let's take inspiration from those golden moments, an Erie Canal, an FDR comeback with the workers corps and the building of an infrastructure, highway infrastructure, and the winning of a global race on space. Let's let that speak to us as a nation. Let us move forward with the passion and the resolve and say, Invest in the clean energy, science and tech, innovation economy. We know we can win this. But if we sit there complacently and don't allow for the investment in our workforce, deny the potential of this Nation, that is not leadership. That is not leadership. We will then be passed by by other nations.

We have the intellect that can be harnessed here to grow the sophisticated products, to deal with a position orientation of manufacturing today, to provide for advanced manufacturing, to come up with clever batteries as a linchpin to the energy revolution, and the list goes on and on and on. Leadership from this Chamber can make a difference, and a sound budget, an honest budget, one that invests in America is what we require right now.

You know, we're not. And I think it's, again, that belief, that sense that we can accomplish; as you were talking about, those early, early days from our humble beginnings.

I was reminded of the event this weekend in my district in Saratoga where we were revisiting the area that hosted General Burgoyne's surrender to the American troops after the Battle of Saratoga. And this was the David and Goliath routine. We weren't supposed to win that battle. It's been dubbed the battle of the millennium. And that it was more than a national battle. It made a statement around the world that this mighty force came up against insurmountable odds and won. That's in our DNA.

We are replete in our history of all sorts of response that came in powerful measure, that said, ``this is America at her best.'' That's the moment to seize right here. Not to walk away and sequester us, weaken us, disinvest in us, defund us.

I told a group of young students this weekend with the Hugh O'Brien Youth Leadership Conference, hundreds of students: Do not let us as a political generation undo your political generation. You are worthy of education dollars, you are in need of access affordability to a college path, you deserve your climate change to be addressed, your planet requires our stewardship. What is this walking away from the next generation? Is that our legacy? Is that what we want our legacy to be? Or is it us remembered as a generation that faced immense challenge after a difficult recession and we came to terms and said the academics applied here show us how to work our way through this critical test and how to invest in America so that her best days lie ahead?

That's responding with fairness, with respect, and justice to that next generation of workers who are only asking us to do what generations before us did: Believe in us, care for us, invest in us, so only our best will be available for us, our best opportunities.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

I oppose the rule and the underlying legislation.

I submitted two amendments to the committee; I regret that neither was made in order. One--rejected by the Republican majority--would have protected private property owners along the pipeline route from being bullied by TransCanada into giving up their land. The other amendment would have required the Secretary of Transportation to provide assurance that current pipeline safety regulations are sufficient to prevent spills of diluted bitumen. I have represented communities that have been impacted by pipeline explosions. I know the price they pay.

Much of this pipeline is going to cross private lands, not public lands. Protection of private property rights is something we hear a lot about whenever government makes a decision to protect unique and valuable public resources. But apparently, if a foreign company wants to build a pipeline to transport oil for export, private property rights can be sacrificed.

What is the rush? There is existing pipeline capacity to deliver this oil. The tar sands are not going to disappear. Our citizens should receive a fair chance to defend their property in State courts. This legislation deprives them of that opportunity.

Ms. Julia Trigg Crawford testified last month before the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice in favor of limiting the power of eminent domain and in strong opposition to granting an exemption to TransCanada. I will include her testimony with my statement. She is only one of a number of landowners who were bullied by TransCanada, and she is now seeking a remedy in State court.

Ms. Crawford and all other property owners who have gone to the courts should have the opportunity to make their cases. If TransCanada wants access to our land, they should follow our laws--laws put in place to safeguard our resources and our rights.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and this ill-conceived and unnecessary legislation.

Testimony submitted to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on

the Constitution and Civil Justice Hearing on the Private Property

Rights Protection Act

April 18, 2013.

My name is Julia Trigg Crawford. I am the third-generation

manager of the farm my grandfather bought in 1948. As a

landowner along TransCanada's conveniently uncoupled Keystone

Gulf Coast Project, I absolutely support measures to limit

eminent domain. But I strongly oppose an exemption for

TransCanada, its Keystone XL, and any other foreign or

domestic for-profit entity that cannot provide proof that

their projects are for public benefit.

I believe, as do countless others following my family's

legal case, that TransCanada has abused the power of eminent

domain in taking our land. When another pipeline asked to

come across our place, we said we did not want them here and

asked they would find a different route through a willing

neighbor. That pipeline company did just that--and eminent

domain was never mentioned.

When they came knocking in 2008 we told TransCanada the

same thing: we don't want a pipeline here, and asked them to

find another route. They said no, then exploited a flawed

permitting process in Texas, and used eminent domain to take

the easement they wanted across our land.

There are a host of reasons why we don't want a pipeline

across our property. First, we don't believe a foreign

corporation should have more of a right to our land than we

do. Secondly, we need to protect its Caddo Indian heritage,

specifically the 145 artifacts TransCanada's archeologists

recently found within the proposed pipeline easement. How

curious that TransCanada and the Texas Historical Commission

concur that my entire 30-acre pasture qualifies for National

Registry of Historic Places recognition, EXCEPT for the one

sliver of land TransCanada must have on our place to connect

the two sections of pipeline they've already build adjacent

to our land

We don't want them horizontally drilling under the Bois

d'Arc Creek where we have State-given water rights. We

irrigate 400 acres of cropland from this creek, and the

pipeline would be just a couple hundred yards upstream from

our pumps. Any leak from that pipeline would contaminate our

equipment, and then our crops in minutes.

Furthermore, the neighbor directly to the west of us owns

thousands of acres, and had granted TransCanada an easement

anyway. When we politely asked them to seek a way around us,

TransCanada could have slightly altered their route and

traversed that neighboring land differently, avoiding our

property altogether. But instead they just pulled out the

club of eminent domain, telling a reporter later it was just

too late to make any changes.

As some of you may know, in 2011 the Texas Supreme Court

ruled in Denbury

Green that private property rights are far too precious to be

taken by simply checking a box on a form. Furthermore, the

Supreme Court said that when challenged by a landowner, the

burden falls on the pipeline to present reasonable proof it

meets the requirements of a common carrier. So we did just

that, we asked for the proof.

In challenging TransCanada, we asked them to provide proof

they met the qualifications as a common carrier and had the

right of eminent domain. And once again they hid behind the

skirts of the Texas Railroad Commission, saying in essence,

The Railroad Commission believes us, you should too. The

embattled Railroad Commission has proven to be nothing more

than a rubber stamp, they have never denied anyone common

carrier status. So, when we asked for another element of

proof, their tariff schedule, TransCanada said in court they

would not have that tariff schedule until about the time

product started flowing. In other words, they could not

produce this particular proof they were entitled to take my

land until after my land was condemned, handed over to them,

construction was completed and tarsands, the product for

which Keystone is being built, was flowing. This is wrong,

and is precisely why the Keystone XL should not be granted an

exemption from this bill's much needed eminent domain

restrictions.

If I read it correctly, this bill's exemptions for

pipelines already under construction allow current eminent

domain abuses to go unpunished. The bill addresses the

problems, and outlines important solutions, yet allows those

who exploited the process up until a certain date on a

calendar to get off ``scot-free''. And as someone who has

lost part of her family farm to this abuse, that's leaves me,

and lots of people like me out in the cold. And add insult to

injury: our land was taken through abusive means, and the

abusers could get off without even a hand-slap.

Two years ago when our family first began our stand against

eminent domain abuse, TransCanada was flying below the radar

screen. No one seemed to know much about the Keystone XL

Pipeline. But now the light is blindingly bright on

TransCanada, the tarsands, and the threat to everyone's land

and water. People around the world see that TransCanada

represents eminent domain gone unchecked and horribly wrong.

Why else would there be so much pushback, by so many people,

from so many backgrounds, in so many ways, to the Keystone XL

project?

If we allow an exception for TransCanada and the Keystone

XL, we will be setting a dangerous precedent, leaving the

door open for even further misuse of our legal system and

more abuse of landowners unwilling to risk their property for

foreign profits. The same system that enabled the judge in

our case to issue a 15-word ruling from his iPhone would

enable TransCanada and other pipeline companies to use the

incredible legal and psychological leverage of eminent domain

to continue stealing property from American citizens.

We have appealed that iPhone ruling, and look forward to

our day in court with an experienced panel of judges in the

6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texarkana, Texas. And if our

legal defense fund holds out, we may take it to the Texas

Supreme Court.

Eminent domain abuse at the hands of one greedy corporation

is unforgivable, but it is part of something even bigger.

While all land is invaluable to its owners, farmland holds a

particularly unique position. Rural property rights, like

mine, are the ``fundamental building blocks for our Nation's

agricultural industry.'' ``The use of eminent domain to take

farmland and other rural property for economic development

threatens liberty, rural economies, and the economy of the

United States.'' And TransCanada is at the heart of these

issues right now. Their advertisements in my local newspaper

say ``We want to be more than just a pipeline company: we

want to be a trusted neighbor''. They've given me no reason

to trust them.

I do not believe there has been even one shred of

documentation that proves that one single drop of the

products transported through TransCanada's pipeline will be

refined for use in the U.S. Yet we are supposed to relinquish

our family's tradition and the cultural heritage of the

families who lived on our land before us, just because

TransCanada says, without proof, that their pipeline is for

the public good. How can this pipeline be for the public good

when so much information about it is not even in the public

record? Diluted bitumen, tarsands, whatever you want to call

it, is a product we should fully understand before we start

pumping it through major waterways, sometimes through 70-

year-old pipelines built before tarsands extraction was

economically viable. TransCanada has called this product

proprietary, refusing to provide specifics. How can we ensure

the safety of a substance when we don't even know its

ingredients?

Pipeline companies do not deserve a free ride, especially

when they can't clean up their own messes, and especially

when we taxpayers are subsidizing the cleanup attempts. Look

at Enbridge in Michigan. Look at Exxon in Arkansas. This is a

spill I went to see for myself. Standing at a culvert, I saw

the 5 foot high imprint of the oil rush to the local

wetlands. The thought of seeing the equivalent on my creek

bank is disheartening. America already subsidizes the oil

industry at a monumental disproportion to other industries.

Are we to further subsidize pipelines with our safety, our

security, and our human dignity?

Corporations may be considered to be people, but dollars do

not yet count as votes. TransCanada's money never sleeps, but

neither do landowners like me, faced with the threat of

losing our property, or seeing our land and identities torn

apart.

This bill brings much needed reform to a sometimes flawed

system, and a platform where wrong can be made right. But

with this exception that includes TransCanada, it is turning

a blind eye to the most flagrant abuser of eminent domain

today. I urge you to remove that exclusion, and let those who

have abused be exposed, and suffer the consequences.

TransCanada stole land that has been in my family for 6

decades, and all for a project that will line their pockets.

To allow them to walk away from past abuses without penalty

is egregious. I will continue to fight these injustices

because life, as we know it, depends on it. And I am not

alone.

Respectfully submitted,

Julia Trigg Crawford.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, we are once again debating a bill that, thankfully, will go no further than this House.

Even if you support the pipeline, this bill is the wrong approach to build it. This bill elevates the financial needs of tar sands developers and the pipeline's builder above the needs and concerns of the citizens who live along the pipeline's path.

I regret that my amendment on pipeline safety was not made in order. We now have ample evidence from the disastrous spills in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Mayflower, Arkansas, that concern about pipeline safety is well justified.

Cleaning up a spill is an expensive and difficult task. Three years after the spill in Kalamazoo, the oil is still not cleaned up. Families evacuated from their homes in Mayflower are still living in temporary housing. The spill is not just messy; it is dangerous. The fumes, liquids, and the solids are a toxic brew. The resources damaged by these spills will take years--probably decades--to restore.

Congress recognized the unique nature of diluted bitumen and asked the National Academy of Sciences to examine questions related to its safe transport and to assess the adequacy of current pipeline safety regulations. This information would be valuable, especially in light of these recent spills; but we are not waiting for it. And if the proponents have their way, we will have no opportunity to act on any recommendations that NAS may provide.

This bill promotes reckless development of a pipeline that provides little public benefits to our citizens while increasing the risk to their communities, their property, and to our natural resources. We should not bypass our laws and the administration's process for evaluating this project.

With that, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3.

I rise today to once again urge House leadership and the majority party in the House to refocus on what should be our top priority--jobs and the long-term economic stability of our Nation.

Each day, we report to our constituents that economic growth and putting Americans back to work is job one in Congress; yet very rarely does our agenda reflect that priority in this House. In fact, the request to name conferees to complete the budget process to grow jobs and grow the economy doesn't get heeded over and over again.

We are putting more and more people to work each month, but I have no doubt that we can do better. As I talk to neighbors and friends back home, unemployment remains their top concern. Instead, many in this Chamber are plotting to take the debt ceiling hostage. We already know the dire consequences from that act.

The bottom line is this: jobs and economic growth are our constituents' top concerns, and they should be ours as well. We can and must do better. Let's put America to work.

Mr. Speaker, our farms and ranches produce food products in amounts that greatly exceed our nutritional needs. There is no reason for anyone in this country to go hungry. And yet, that is a daily reality faced by many poor families.

The food stamp program provides a small but essential safety net to meet the nutritional needs of children, the elderly, the disabled, and those who fall on hard times when our economy sheds jobs.

The proposed cuts to the food stamp program included in the House farm bill are unacceptable and cruel. Poor nutrition leads to poor health outcomes and long-term developmental problems in children. It does not save money. It simply transfers costs to those who cannot pay those costs and needlessly increases suffering. We can afford to feed all of our citizens. A farm and food policy that cannot deliver nutritious meals to all Americans is indeed failed policy. We can and must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. That's right, America, the repeal of patients' rights, brought to you by the Republican majority of the House. It is the 37th vote to repeal ObamaCare.

While far from perfect, the Affordable Care Act was a serious attempt to solve a serious problem. By contrast, the legislation we are considering today is not serious, and the only problem it portends to solve is offering new Members of this body an opportunity to vote on a bill that isn't going anywhere.

I assure you, there's no lack of real problems for this body to address. As of March, the unemployment rate for most of my congressional district was at 7 percent. Does anyone in this Chamber think we should sit on our laurels with 7.3 percent unemployment? Instead of holding 37 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, is it too much to ask that we just hold one vote on the American Jobs Act, legislation that included both Democratic and Republican ideas that would put more money in the pockets of small businesses and put countless Americans back to work? These political votes are a foolish waste of time, and the American people deserve better.

In closing, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this blatantly political legislation and return to a focus on legislation that creates jobs, grows the economy, lays the foundation for sustainable prosperity, and doesn't strip away health care benefits for millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 144, I was absent because of travel delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Holt. I want to thank Chairman Hastings and Representative Markey and Representative Holt and other members of the Natural Resources Committee for working steadfastly together to bring this important bill to the floor.

The Federal Helium Reserve was created in 1925, long before today's many uses of helium were envisioned. Now this element has become an essential ingredient to our Nation's research, medical, technology, manufacturing, space, and defense activities. Helium is used in welding and in the manufacturing of fiber optic cable and semiconductors. Medical imaging has become a vital tool in the health care system, and every MRI requires helium. The list of applications for this element is long and touches many important industries.

When the current law passed in 1996, the situation with respect to helium's value and usage was quite different, and there was an expectation that additional private sources of helium would be developed and then of course enter the market. For a variety of reasons, that has not yet happened on a sufficient enough scale to ensure a stable supply of helium to meet our national demand for this basic element.

The Federal Government, through the Bureau of Land Management, needs to remain engaged in this market for an additional period of time. The United States reserve is about 40 percent of the worldwide supply of helium. The many industries and research institutions that rely on helium cannot afford a disruption in its supply.

The national storage facility is unique, and there are many characteristics of the helium market that are distinctly different from the markets of most commodities. These factors are likely the reasons a more robust private supply of helium has not yet emerged to replace our Federal Government's role. H.R. 527 provides additional time to phase down the Federal Government's role in the helium market and to allow a private market to develop.

There is no substitute for helium in many of its crucial applications. Passage of this legislation is critical to maintaining high-wage, high-skilled jobs in my district, the 20th Congressional District of New York, throughout New York State for that matter, and in many other States across our great country. It is essential that we work with the Senate to get a law signed this year to provide certainty to helium suppliers and users.

I recognize there are some who are uncomfortable with certain aspects of this legislation. It is not a perfect bill, and if the expected development of private supplies of helium does not occur, we need to revisit this issue in the future.

For the present, though, this bill offers a reasonable compromise that keeps helium flowing onto the market, and that is what we need now. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 527 and maintain a reliable supply of this vital ingredient for the sake of research and industry.

It is time for a real debate on climate change--right here on the House floor. The members of the Safe Climate Caucus come to the floor to talk about this critical issue every day that the House is in session, but where are our Republican colleagues?

Last week, we challenged the Republican members of the Energy and Commerce Committee to a debate, a debate about the appropriate policy response to the threat of climate change, but we've heard nothing from the Republicans. The House Republican leadership should schedule that debate right away. This problem is not going away. The longer we delay, the greater the risks.

The Energy and Commerce Committee has refused to act or to even hear the latest science. Congressman Waxman and Congressman Rush have sent over 20 letters requesting hearings with scientists and other experts about important developments in climate science, but the Republicans have refused to hold any hearings on climate change. The American public is entitled to an explanation for this disappointing record of inaction.

Madam Speaker, we need to get serious about tackling climate change. That means having a debate about what actions should be taken. That debate is long overdue, and my friends, time is running out.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Francis ``Dutch'' Howlan, who had resided in Amsterdam, New York, and who was posthumously inducted into the New York State Basketball Hall of Fame last month.

From 1953 to 1987, Dutch amassed 468 wins coaching at St. Mary's Institute and Bishop Scully High School, both in Amsterdam, New York. But he meant so much more than that impressive win total to our community and to the hundreds of student athletes he taught and mentored. His friends and former players remember him as a dedicated coach, an inspiring mentor, and a determined winner. As a fierce competitor, he preached a never-give-up attitude.

Twenty-four years after his passing, I am so pleased that Dutch has finally received this distinction. It is truly a testament to his character that his friends and players never gave up on their former coach's legacy, making this long overdue honor possible.