Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I remember the bad old days of health insurance before the Affordable Care Act. They could refuse to sell you a policy if you had ever been sick. They could refuse to renew your policy if you got sick. Oh, and they had another thing called rescission, where they could put a group of examiners on you and try and take away your policy if you got sick, and this happened numerous times due to technicalities.

They can't do those things anymore.

They had a cap on your benefits. If you had a really expensive disease: Oh, sorry, your benefits are exhausted. You just go die now.

So those things are gone; but if they totally repeal the Affordable Care Act, they are likely to come roaring back.

The Republicans say competition will take care of that. The problem is there is no competition in the insurance industry. They are exempt from antitrust law. They can and they do collude to set rates, to redline people, to decide what States they will sell policies in.

Therefore, today, I am introducing the Health Insurance Fair Competition Act. It would subject the health insurance industry to the same laws that apply to every other industry in America--except for professional sports are exempt from antitrust law. This is a commonsense solution.

If they can rely on competition, we need competition. There wouldn't be any unless we take away their antitrust exemption.

Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H. Res. 11, the Object to UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2334 as Obstacle

to Israeli-Palestinian Peace resolution. The resolution expresses the House's disapproval of UNSC Resolution 2334, which passed 14 to 0 with the United States abstaining from the vote.

H. Res. 11 mischaracterizes the UN resolution and falsely claims that the United States has never abstained from votes on similar resolutions. The UN resolution reaffirms that Israel's settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are a ``major obstacle'' to peace, which has been long-standing US policy. H. Res. 11 states that the Obama Administration took an unprecedented step by abstaining from the vote when in fact the decision is not unique. The Reagan Administration took a similar step when it abstained from voting on UNSCR 605 that identified Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian and Arab Territories which is now occupied by Israel. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have continued similar U.S. policies.

Representatives Price, Engel and Connolly offered a more balanced resolution as an amendment to H. Res. 11, but unfortunately House leadership refused to allow it a vote. The text of the amendment is now H. Res. 23, of which I am a cosponsor.

H. Res. 23 supports the longstanding policy that it is in the best interest of the international community that a two-state solution is reached only through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It reiterates United States support for Israel by opposing any outside efforts to impose a solution on the parties but rather to help facilitate peace negotiations. It includes continued opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign which calls for boycotting certain products and companies, divesting from various organizations, and encouraging the use of sanctions against Israel.

I have always supported a two-state solution with Israel and a Palestinian state through direct negotiations between the two parties. As an ally of Israel, the United States has an interest to ensure a lasting peace is reached between Israel and Palestine. Let me be clear, while I support the United States' strong relationship and alliance with Israel, Israel's proliferation of settlements around the West Bank and East Jerusalem is directly at odds with establishing a two-state solution.

Mr. Speaker, during this last Presidential election year, there was a tremendous amount of discussion about the Nation's infrastructure and the need for investment to make America more competitive and move goods and our citizens more efficiently.

There wasn't a lot of particular discussion about ports, but they are an incredibly important part of our infrastructure. More than $470 billion of exports went through America's ports. Three-quarters of our exports are waterborne through these ports around the United States.

Now, the Corps of Engineers says that, of our 59 busiest ports depicted here, they are fully available less than 35 percent of the time, and that is even before we begin to deal with the larger cargo ships that are going to be coming through the expanded Panama Canal to the Southeast and other ports in the United States, and that is because of a lack of funding.

Now, obviously, that is a very difficult problem. We are estimating about a $20 billion shortfall over the next 10 years in funding. Where, oh where, could Congress find that money? Actually, we already have it.

Now, Congress, in its wisdom in 1986, with the cooperation and consent of shipping interests, imposed a tax, an ad valorem tax, on the value of imports. It is a very small tax, but it adds slightly to the cost of any good that any American buys every day that is imported.

Now, Americans are paying the tax and Congress is stealing the money. Yep, that is true--for stupid purposes, no less. We are pretending to make the deficit smaller by collecting twice as much tax as we invest in our ports.

Meantime, we are forgoing the investment that is needed in those ports to become even more efficient and more competitive in the world economy. Congress is collecting the tax, yet the Budget Committee and the appropriators here in the Republican House are saying: Let's hide that money over here. We will put it in the Treasury harbor maintenance trust fund. Don't worry. It's there. Some day we might spend it.

Nine billion dollars today--$9 billion--that would address half of the long-term shortfall in our ports. This could be an incredible boon for shippers, for American competitiveness, and for jobs in this country. We don't have to levy a new tax. All we have to do is spend the tax that is being collected from the American people by jacking up the price of imported goods for the purpose for which it is lawfully intended.

Now, the appropriators don't like it because, hey, they don't get to mess around with it, and the Budget Committee doesn't like it because that means they either have to look like they have another half a billion dollars a year of deficit or they would have to raise some funds somewhere else to spend somewhere else.

But the point is this money should be spent as intended. So today I am sending a letter to President-elect Trump. He has said time and time again he wants to invest in our infrastructure. Obviously, it is going to be a little longer term before we get to surface because we are going to have to raise additional revenues there to deal with our crumbling roads, bridges, and transit systems.

But for our ports, we don't have to wait. Day one, he can send a message to Congress saying: Hey, get off your butts down there and spend that money for the purpose for which the tax was collected. Stop gouging the American taxpayers and shorting our ports.

It's time to do things a little differently around here, and I am hopeful that the President perhaps will tweet about this and get some action out of the Republican majority like he did yesterday in reversing them on a rather drastic change to the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize University of Oregon (UO) Professor David Frank. In his 32 year career at the UO, Professor Frank has taught, mentored, and inspired generations of students. He has shaped the study of speech and debate as the dean of the Robert D. Clark Honors Program at the UO and as the longtime director of the UO Forensics Program. For his exemplary work and for his leadership, the UO college debate tournament has been renamed the David Frank Tournament of Scholars.

Professor Frank is renowned for his wit, rhetorical flair, and passion for the principles of debate. He is the recipient of five teaching awards, including three university wide recognitions and a career achievement award in forensics. He has overseen the UO Forensics Program since 1981, which won three national championships and international recognition, with a team competing in the semifinal round at the 2006 World Universities Championship in Dublin, Ireland.

As a University of Oregon graduate, it is my pleasure to highlight the outstanding accomplishments of Professor Frank. I am also proud to note that Oregon forensics dates to the founding of the university in 1876. One of the very first intercollegiate debates in America occurred in 1891 between Oregon and Willamette University. The style of debate now known as policy cross-examination was developed at the University of Oregon in the 1930s.

The UO hosts the first David Frank Tournament of Scholars later this month, an honor Professor Frank so richly merits.

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

Madam Speaker, for anyone watching this debate for the 11th time who isn't familiar with the substantive reasons to oppose this legislation, I would refer them to my earlier remarks numerous times on the floor of the House because, in the interest of time, I am not going to repeat them.

I am going to say that I am pleased that this is actually a big step forward for the other side of the aisle in the House because there are two critical changes that the Senate made which go to a raging debate on the Republican side of the aisle here in the House, and that is whether or not climate change is real or a hoax.

By voting for this bill today, you are going to endorse language saying that climate change is real and not a hoax. I think that is tremendous progress for the Republican side of the aisle, who I expect will be supporting this bill to accept the reality of climate change. I am thrilled that that is in there, and their votes will be reflected in the Record as endorsing that language.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, one of the other substantive issues we have raised numerous times is that this foreign corporation will not-- because of a bizarre ruling by the Internal Revenue Service--will not be paying into the trust fund which goes to mitigate pipeline spills, breaks, and cleanups: the oil spill liability trust fund.

We have offered that as a motion to recommit numerous times here on the floor, thinking it would be a reasonable thing to level the playing field between U.S. producers shipping oil and a Canadian company shipping oil which is going to be exported from the United States perhaps after it is refined.

Again, this will be a shift on the Republican side of the aisle because you will be voting for language that says, ``Congress should approve a bill to ensure that all forms of bitumen or synthetic crude oil derived from bitumen are subject to the per-barrel excise tax associated with the oil spill liability trust fund,'' which would be I think the first time the Republican side has endorsed any sort--well, no, there was a tax increase for inland waterways users buried in that bill in December--but this will be only the second time that Republicans here have voted to increase a tax.

I am really thrilled to see that and the fact that we will be righting that inequity, and essentially, the Republicans will be endorsing something that we have offered numerous times on the floor.

The third thing--which really isn't an improvement--is some Senators stuck in language saying that when this foreign corporation takes American citizens' private property against their will, they have to follow the Constitution.

Well, unfortunately, because of the Kelo decision--which we did try a number of years ago to clarify and overturn--the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has ruled that you can yield the right, for economic development purposes, to a private entity to take peoples' private property.

We are going one step--or you are going one step further here by actually giving that authority to a foreign corporation. As far as I know, this is the first time in the history of the United States of America that a foreign corporation will have the right to take private property from an American citizen against their will. That isn't an improvement, just saying ``follow the Constitution,'' because of the ruling by the Supreme Court.

But the other two are great. Climate change exists. You are endorsing that implicitly by voting for this bill. We should increase taxes and impose taxes on this tar sands oil.

Again, I think this is a big breakthrough for the other side. I still won't be voting for the bill. I stand on the previous concerns I have raised. Those are all still extant, but these things will be worthy of noticing.

With that, Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) be allowed to control the balance of my time in addition to the time controlled by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, this week, Americans making more than one million dollars a year will get a tax break. Not because Congress approved one, but because they've already reached the maximum amount of income that is subject to the Social Security tax. That's right--those making more than one million dollars have already reached the income cap of $118,500, and we're not even six weeks into the year.

This gaping loophole allows billionaire hedge fund managers and corporate CEOs to pay a lower percentage of their income into Social Security than teachers, police officers and healthcare workers. Ninety- four percent of American workers pay Social Security tax on all of their income. But the wealthiest six percent are exempt from doing the same. By closing this loophole, we can make sure that every American pays exactly the same percentage of their income into Social Security.

Ending this tax racket for the wealthy also ensures that Social Security will continue paying full benefits to every single American who pays in. We have a choice: we can tell our children and grandchildren that their Social Security benefits will be cut in order to maintain a regressive tax that benefits only the richest six percent, or we can close this loophole and guarantee that if you pay into the program, you will receive the full Social Security benefits you were promised.

Unfortunately, this is not the conversation that has dominated Washington, DC in recent years. Instead, some of my colleagues in Congress would prefer to manufacture a crisis in order to privatize the entire system, leaving seniors' benefits at the mercy of Wall Street power brokers. They want you to think the system cannot be fixed and that Social Security as we know it is doomed. We can prove them wrong. If every American pays their fair share into the system, we can make sure the government fulfills its obligation to America's seniors.

Mr. Speaker, on January 28, 2015 I was unable to be present and missed the following votes:

On Roll Call vote 49, on Agreeing to the Motion to Recommit With Instructions to H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, I would have voted AYE.

On Roll Call vote 50, on Passage of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, I would have voted NO.

Mr. Speaker, today, January 27, 2015, I was unable to be present and missed the following votes:

On Roll Call vote 46, on Agreeing to the Resolution H. Res. 48 providing for consideration for the bill H.R. 351 to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas, and for other purposes, I would have voted NO.

On Roll Call vote 47, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 469, the Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act, I would have voted AYE.

On Roll Call Vote 48, on Motion to Suspend the rules and Pass H.R. 246, to Improve Response to Victims of Child Sex Trafficking, I would have voted AYE.

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

Well, it is Groundhog Day come early to the floor of the House. It is cold enough I guess for Groundhog Day, but this will be the 10th time in the last 4 years that the House of Representatives has moved this bill with the assertion that somehow it leads us to energy independence, energy security, lower prices at the pump.

Well, the reality is a Canadian corporation is going to build a pipeline from Canada to Texas. They are going to be exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, unlike most other projects in this country, because of a stupid ruling by the IRS--but that is nothing new--regarding tar sands. So they will be exempt from paying into that. So if this thing bursts, there is an accident, the taxpayers of the United States get the bill, not the taxpayers of Canada. They don't get the bill. The taxpayers of the United States get the bill. Now, that is one of a number of problems regarding this project.

It is somewhat unprecedented, I believe. This may have happened at some other time in American history, but I do find it particularly ironic today, when we had the reading of the Constitution, that the effect of passing this bill, if it were to become law--and the President has already said he will veto it. But if this were to become law, the effect would be to give a foreign corporation the right to take private property from American citizens.

I am not aware of any other time in the history of the Union where we have given a foreign corporation the right to take Americans' private property. And, yes, some people were happy to sell the rights, but many others weren't, including some in Nebraska and some in Texas. It has been quite contentious among landowners who are just having this corporation come.

I would like to put in the Record a letter from TransCanada. We have blacked out the name of the recipient of the letter, but it is a true copy of a letter to a person who will have their private property taken by eminent domain by a foreign corporation, and the foreign corporation informs them that they will begin proceedings this month, I guess because of the anticipated Republican action, to take their private property away.

TransCanada,

Omaha, NE, December 8, 2014

Re Keystone XL Project Update.

Dear Landowner: While we continue to wait for decisions

from the Nebraska Supreme Court and from the U.S. Department

of State regarding our proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, I would

like to provide you with an update on our project.

To date, Nebraska landowners have voluntarily granted us

easements representing 84 percent of the required right-of-

way for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. We continue to work

to acquire the remaining land rights. In Montana and South

Dakota, we have acquired easements for 100 percent of the

privately owned right-of-way.

Between September 2008 and earlier this year, five

successive sets of extensive public comments were taken and

five successive independent environmental assessments were

published by the State Department. Each review confirmed the

safety and environmental soundness of the project. The State

Department is continuing its review of our Presidential

Permit application and will ultimately make a determination

whether the project is in the national interest. The State

Department has not announced a definitive timeline for

reaching that decision.

In addition, reviews have been completed separately by the

States of Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota. As with the

federal reviews, these state reviews included extensive

public input. Each resulted in state approval of the project.

In South Dakota, the South Dakota Public Utilities

Commission approved the project in 2010. Because construction

did not begin within four years, we must certify that the

pipeline continues to meet the conditions upon which the

permit was issued. We have initiated the certification

process and we expect a decision in 2015.

The State of Nebraska enacted legislation in 2011 and in

2012 requiring state review of the proposed Keystone XL

Pipeline route. The Governor approved the route in January

2013, after a year-long public review process overseen by the

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Following a

legal challenge of the new law, a lower court determined that

the law was not valid and that the review should have been

overseen by the Nebraska Public Service Commission. The

Nebraska Attorney General appealed the lower court ruling to

the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Court is expected to make

a ruling later this year or early next year.

Pending a decision on the appeal, the law remains in effect

as does the resulting Keystone XL route. In the event that

the Nebraska Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling

invalidating the new law, we would expect a second Nebraska

review to be required, this time by the Nebraska Public

Service Commission.

If instead, the Nebraska Supreme Court reverses the lower

court ruling, affirming the validity of the existing state

review, we expect that other aspects of that law would remain

in effect as well. One of those aspects affects the timing

available to complete negotiations to acquire remaining

property rights in Nebraska. If parties ultimately are not

able to reach voluntary agreement on acquisition of necessary

land rights for the project, we are required to commence the

legal process of eminent domain to obtain those rights within

two years of the January 2013 Nebraska approval.

We recognize that the Supreme Court ruling may not be

issued before we are required to take action in preparation

for the existing January 2015 deadline. While we would prefer

not to initiate the process to acquire outstanding land

rights while there is uncertainty, we are bound by that

deadline in order to meet our responsibility to continue to

prepare to build the pipeline necessary to safely transport

North American energy.

Regardless of your perspective on the project, we would

welcome the opportunity to address your questions and

concerns and discuss property-specific details for pipeline

construction. When we are able to work with landowners to

achieve mutual agreement where possible, we are better able

to minimize potential effects of construction on land and

operations.

A member of my land team will follow-up with you or your

legal counsel. If you have not heard from us or if you have

questions, you are welcome to contact me. If you would like

to see an operating pipeline, please let us know and we'd be

happy to arrange for a

tour of a pump station on the operating Keystone line in

Nebraska.

Sincerely,

Andrew Craig,

Manager--Land, Keystone Projects,

TransCanada Pipelines, USA.

Now, that is a bit ironic, again, on the day we read the Constitution and also of the party of individual rights for property owners. So that is also of concern.

Yes, there will be construction jobs, and I am the first to admit we need more jobs in America. In fact, I voted against the President's so- called stimulus bill because it didn't invest enough in building infrastructure in this country. Instead, it did a whole bunch of stupid tax cuts because of Larry Summers, a highly acclaimed hack economist, and we didn't put a lot of people back to work. Seven percent went to infrastructure, that created jobs; 42 percent went to tax cuts, didn't create jobs. But that is another agenda the Republicans are pursuing is tax cuts to create jobs, but we won't get into that here today.

So, yes, that will happen, but there are a lot of other investments we should, could, and I believe the chairman supports making that will create significant construction and infrastructure jobs.

Now, were this just in isolation and it didn't involve the total destruction of the boreal forests of Canada, if I were Canadian I would be pretty upset about that; and perhaps the dirtiest, most environmentally problematic way of extracting fossil fuels from the ground to get these oil sands, the construction jobs might carry the day, but sometimes you have to draw a line.

In this case, we also hear it is going to lead somehow to energy security. Well, that is interesting because the crude, tar sand oil, or whatever you want to call it, is going to come down to Texas without paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund--creating a potential problem for the future taxpayers of the United States--go to a refinery in an export zone in Texas, and, yes, it will be refined and then it will be exported.

We are exporting millions of gallons of fuel every day, so to somehow say this is going to lead to lower prices at the pump in America--maybe it is lower prices at the pump in China or I don't know where else, Japan or someplace, but it isn't going to be here because the product is ultimately going to be exported. So it is also not going to do anything for our energy security, and at the moment we have kind of a surfeit because of fracking and other things of fuels, and prices are down considerably.

So those are just a few of the problems.

And by passing this bill, the House of Representatives will attempt to preempt the executive authority of the President in this matter because this pipeline crosses an international border. The President has authority, and the State Department has been considering it.

And even with the Supreme Court of Nebraska refusing to make a judgment, they didn't uphold the law of the Nebraska legislature. In fact, four out of seven judges--normally a majority in most places-- said it was unconstitutional, but Nebraska has a peculiarity that if the other three judges take a walk--which they did--then even though a majority found it unconstitutional, it is not found unconstitutional, and that is the end of the proceeding.

So that is the big news out of Nebraska. They need a little work on their constitution, I think. So it hasn't received a stamp of approval there. There are still aggrieved landowners in Nebraska who object to the route and who are going to have their private property taken by a foreign corporation. So other than that, it is a great idea.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time remains of the 15 minutes that I had?

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

The gentleman just referenced safely transport. Of course that is a hypothetical. And let me give a real example:

In 2010, a Canadian company, Enbridge, had a pipeline burst in Marshall, Michigan, spilling 1 million gallons of tar sands oil.

Now, here is the thing. All oil has viscosity and other characteristics. The thing about tar sands oil is, it doesn't float. It goes right to the bottom. They are still dredging Canadian tar sands oil out of the bottom of the Kalamazoo River 4 years later. And so far, claims of $53 million have been made, which will have to be paid by American taxpayers against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and not by Enbridge, the Canadian corporation.

Which is what we are setting up here: an even greater transshipment by a foreign corporation, exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, creating even bigger potential for spills with this oil, which has unique characteristics which are much more difficult to clean up if it comes in contact with water and, God forbid, it gets into the aquifer in one of the States that are being transected.

The chairman did reference the 15 hearings. We have a difference in counting. But let's say 15 hearings. Three were in the Rules Committee. Those aren't hearings. That is sort of a little star chamber where you take things before you bring them to the floor of the House. You don't discuss substance there. One was in the Senate. There were 10 in the House, but not a single one of those hearings was in the principal committee of jurisdiction, which would be the Transportation Committee. And of course the bill that was marked up by the Transportation Committee in the first session of the last Congress was very different than the bill that is being advocated for today, which has not been marked up.

And we heard a lot about regular order, read the bill, and all that stuff. It is fine to say, gee, we have voted on this a lot of times before. With 61 new Members of the House, gas prices are down by almost 50 percent, a lot of things have changed. I would even wonder about the viability of this project.

I did just recently learn that the Koch brothers, though, have a significant investment in tar sands in Canada. But that probably has nothing to do with an attempt to expedite this project.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this moment, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

In response to the transport, yes, pipelines are generally safer, but the

consequences--look at the case in Michigan--when a pipeline goes are generally much greater, much greater volumes.

Even in the horrific train accidents we have had, the volumes were relatively small that were spilled, even though the consequences-- particularly in the one in Canada--were very, very damaging. Minimally, you should have added to the bill requiring them to pay into the oil spill liability trust fund. That would make that slightly less objectionable.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are exporting more than 60 percent of the oil that we produce every day either as refined or even as crude product. In this case, Canadian oil, exempt from a tax, will flow

through the United States to a refinery.

It will be processed and exported overseas. Somehow, that is going to lower prices further at the pump. Somehow, that is going to lead to American energy security.

You have to blow the dust off those arguments. They are a little dated, so we have raised a number of concerns here today.

Minimally--minimally--the Republicans should require this Canadian corporation to pay the same tax that most U.S. corporations pay when they transport products through pipelines and not put American taxpayers at risk.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman. I also congratulate the chair, the ranking member, and others who support this needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring new focus to NOAA's ongoing efforts on deploying early detection systems, research, and working with potentially affected communities, better educating the public and designating evacuation routes and putting other measures in place that can mitigate damage or loss of life in the case of a tsunami.

The Cascadia Subduction fault is not as well known to most Americans as the San Andreas in California, but the Cascadia Subduction fault, which starts just south of my district off of northern California has the potential for an even more devastating earthquake and much more probability of a devastating tsunami than anything caused by the San Andreas and other major faults.

This bill is good in the focus it brings. The gentleman who spoke before me from California said it does it in a fiscally responsible way. Well, I would only disagree with that in that it is not fiscally responsible to underfund these efforts at NOAA.

We should be moving forward with all dispatch to use existing technology which is on the shelf and being deployed by Japan, Southeast Asia, off of South America, and being used on land in Mexico and places like Romania for early detection systems.

We are researching and thinking about what we want to do. There are off-the-shelf technologies that will work for remote sensing. What will that mean? If you have remote sensors off the southern Oregon coast close to this fault, that means in the case of a major earthquake-- which could be Category 9--you would have a warning further and further up the coast, a longer warning.

For people immediately adjacent or in the mid-Oregon coast, it could definitely save lives and give people more time to get to high ground by using known evacuation routes.

The further you move north, say to the city of Portland, a major quake will have a major impact, but the shock waves would take 8 to 10 minutes or more to travel there. You could get people off the bridges. You could shut down the light rail system. People with critical manufacturing undertakings could shut down their lines, so they would have less economic loss.

In my district, schools could be evacuated. We have many schools that don't meet earthquake standards that will collapse. Given 3 to 5 minutes that we could have in Eugene, you could

save the lives of hundreds and hundreds of kids.

But we are the United States of America. We can't afford it. Under the budget priorities of the Republican Party, we can't afford to deploy an early warning system off the United States of America. Now, Mexico can afford it. Chile can afford it. Malaysia and Indonesia can afford it. Japan can afford it. Romania and Mexico can afford it. We can't.

Well, it is time to stop dragging our feet. This bill brings the focus to NOAA, but it also brings focus on the fact that we aren't giving them the money they need.

It brings focus to NOAA that will hopefully urge them to move more quickly and not mess around trying to develop new technologies or thinking about it, like some of our Federal agencies do. Use known, off-the-shelf technologies that work and is being deployed elsewhere in the world, and it is up to Congress to give them a budget adequate to do this.

I hope we act soon. This bill today is the first step.

Mr. Speaker, Jim Oberstar was a true gentleman of the House who ably represented Minnesota's 8th District for 36 years. He was a fixture of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Jim started as staff in the 1960s, became a Member in the 1970s, then served as Chairman of the Committee from 2007 to 2011. I was blessed to work, and sometimes ride, alongside Jim for many years. Given his many years of work to improve transportation in Minnesota and across the country, it is fitting that a portion of Interstate Highway 35 be renamed in his honor.

As a tireless advocate on transportation issues, Jim earned well- deserved admiration in many circles, including in my home state of Oregon. He accompanied me on tours to advocate for increased infrastructure investment. Jim truly understood the importance of investment as a way to create American jobs, improve safety, and build roads, bridges and transit systems to accommodate a 21st Century economy. His passion and leadership are evident in projects across the country.

Jim was also an avid cyclist, and I am grateful I had the opportunity to show him my state in 2007 during the Cycle Oregon event. He was one tough athlete, easily outpacing cyclists half his age. Jim was a champion of the road in more ways than one.

Like many people in Washington, DC, Minnesota and beyond, I feel fortunate to consider Jim not only a colleague, but a friend and a mentor. I only wish he had lived long enough to share all of his knowledge with the rest of us.

Mr. Speaker, today I am voting against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of Fiscal Year 2015. Although this bill contains a few positive measures and provisions that I support it unfortunately creates a two year blank check for the U.S. to wage a war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) in both Syria and Iraq.

I am vehemently opposed to this two year authorization to train and equip as yet unknown forces in both Syria and Iraq to combat ISIL. Tragically, Congress has once again abdicated its constitutional responsibilities under War Powers. Instead of voting on a vague authorization today, we should wait and pass judgment on a more detailed assessment on this operation and vote on a specific authorization for use of military force (AUMF). In addition to the $5 billion already authorized to continue the fight against ISIL, this bill mistakenly allows for the reprogramming of funds as the President sees fit from the $63.7 billion overseas contingency operations account, which has turned into a slush fund to fight unauthorized wars.

If you turned to any of my colleagues today and asked the basic question who are the 5,000 fighters that the U.S. will train and equip in Syria, they could not give you an answer. Not even our intelligence agencies know who we can trust. Before granting authorization, Congress should at least know who it is we are giving U.S. weapons to and what their ideology and political goals are. This is a complex mess of various actors, many of whom cannot be considered trustworthy allies. The Syrian opposition is made up of hundreds of thousands of fighters from various factions that are also fighting amongst each other.

In Iraq, the U.S. is looking to form an alliance with a new government whose current Prime Minister has yet to prove he will bring Sunnis back into an inclusive society and government. At the moment the Iraqi army barely exists on paper. The main Iraqi force currently fighting ISIL, Asaib Ahl al-haq, is incredibly hostile to the U.S. and was attacking our troops up to the last day of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The enemy of our enemy is not always an ally.

That is why it is so critical that Congress be presented with a detailed plan of this ``train and equip'' operation including who it is that we are arming before we vote and this authorization fails to do that.

Most importantly what we are voting on today is a small part of President Obama's larger strategy to go to war with ISIL. No President can declare war without Congressional authorization. If the U.S. is going to war with ISIL as it appears that we are, then my colleagues need to vote on an AUMF. The American people did not elect us to punt the responsibility for matters of war and peace to the President. The purpose of an AUMF is to lay out in detail the scope, plan, purpose, and duration of a military operation and to provide both classified and non-classified briefings to Congress and allow them to debate and express their opinions on the merits of this. Absent an AUMF from Congress, we are committing ourselves to an open ended war, declared by the President about which we have little to no details.

Despite my disagreements with the President on defense policy, members of our armed forces must be adequately funded and get the services they deserve. The bill includes increased funding for the National Guard, a 1% pay raise for our troops, and additional funding for mental health screenings and psychological services for those who have served and suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. Additionally, this bill prevents the retirement of the A-10 Warthog, a more cost effective close air-support weapons system than the F-35 Joint Striker, contains funding for nuclear non-proliferation activities, and acquisition reform measures that take a small step in reining in the bloated Pentagon budget. I strongly support these provisions of the NDAA.

Lastly, there was a public lands package attached to this bill that include provisions that are critical to the West Coast and Oregon. The REFI Act will save West Coast fishermen millions of dollars by refinancing expensive, unfair high-interest federal loans. The expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument will boost the local economy and create needed jobs in southern Oregon, protect the unique cave system for hiking and other recreational opportunities, and it designates the River Styx--the underground stream running through Oregon Caves--as the first subterranean Wild and Scenic River in the nation. The package wasn't perfect, but it was the result of a multi- year negotiation to clear the backlog of mostly non-controversial, locally supported lands bills that have languished in this dysfunctional Congress. I didn't pick the vehicle to move these bills, and unfortunately it was attached to the NDAA.

Again, I will ultimately vote no on this legislation because it contains a two-year blank check to fight an unauthorized war in Iraq and Syria. Congress shouldn't duck its responsibility to thoroughly debate and discuss the authorization of use of force.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Chesapeake Bay is America's largest estuary, and restoration of the estuary will be an incredible conservation challenge. The Federal Government, States, localities, and conservation groups have spent billions of dollars to improve water quality, habitat, fisheries, recreational opportunities, and tributaries since the first Chesapeake Bay agreement was signed back in 1983; yet the water quality has continued to deteriorate.

The efforts have yielded some impressive successes, but by many metrics, the bay is still in poor health. This is due in large part to the fact that since bay cleanup began in earnest in the eighties, the population of the watershed has increased dramatically by more than one-third.

There is more wetland loss, more polluted runoff, and more nutrients in the wastewater and other sources entering the bay. In a sense, the bay is being loved to death by those who live near it.

President Obama's 2009 executive order on Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration has refocused Federal efforts, and that is a good thing; however, taxpayers and bay advocates deserve to know more about how and how much money is being spent.

S. 1000 would require the Office of Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget of Federal agency and State expenditures on bay restoration. This exercise will help identify areas where Bay partners can better coordinate or eliminate redundancy.

Mr. Speaker, this is commonsense legislation that will help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts. I would certainly congratulate the representative from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) for championing this cause and shepherding his version of this legislation through the House.

I would note that today I did hear on the radio that the Governor- elect of Maryland is proposing to further delay or undo some additional restrictions on the applications of chicken manure and other phosphate nitrogen-rich fertilizers that are contributing to the dramatic deterioration of the bay.

I would say this new Governor is being very shortsighted in terms of the benefits of the bay in total versus the small cost that would be imposed upon farmers to get these needed restrictions in place, and I would hope that he reconsiders and hears a lot about this from his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Miller on this legislation. H.R. 5699 will authorize the National Park Service to expand the boundary of the John Muir National Historic Site and acquire, by donation, 44 acres of land from the Muir Heritage Land Trust. It will expand the site and help carry on Muir's legacy of conservation and environmental stewardship.

John Muir is an important historic figure to me and to millions of other Americans in terms of his advocacy for the environment. Obviously, we owe him a great debt of gratitude for many, many of the actions of his legacy--Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks, and he also founded the Sierra Club back in the early part of the last century. This bill will contribute to his legacy and help protect and conserve the place where he found solace and inspiration in his later years.

It was interesting to me. I read an article that I would describe as sort of ascribing 21st century political correctness on the part of a few historians--one from UCLA, one from Stanford, and one person from the Center for Biological Diversity--essentially criticizing and denying the legacy of John Muir and using a 21st century politically correct backwards telescope to look at it. It is just extraordinary to me that there are people like that who exist. Sure, he didn't live up to 21st century political correctness, and he certainly couldn't have predicted the phenomenal growth of the Western United States and the need for amenities that relate to the environment in major urban areas, but what he saved is an extraordinary gift enjoyed by millions of Americans and people from around the entire world every year. I just have to say to those people that they are a bit misguided.

With that, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague Representative

George Miller on this. Obviously, this is coming at the end of an extraordinary career of service to America and protecting our environment for future generations. I think it is really, really appropriate that Mr. Miller is moving this bill to help perpetuate the legacy of someone else who, at a much earlier time, also contributed phenomenally to our public resources and assets.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5086 directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail in Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas. The trail extends 550 miles following the same route taken by Chief Standing Bear and the Ponca people during Federal Indian removal in 1877 and their subsequent return to Nebraska.

Chief Standing Bear played an important role in American history. He was the first Native American recognized by the United States Government as a person under law, following his arrest

and ensuing trial for leaving his reservation in Oklahoma without permission.

Chief Standing Bear was honoring his son's dying wish to be buried in the land of his birth and traveled with his son's remains, along with 20 other members of his tribe, through harsh conditions from Oklahoma back to their ancestral lands in Nebraska.

Unfortunately, at that time, leaving the reservation was a violation of law.

At the very least, 135 years later, it is only right that we look into the feasibility of including this trail as part of the National Historic Trails system, to reflect on a not-so-proud period of American history in our country when Native Americans were treated as second- class citizens and honor the courage of Chief Standing Bear in living up to the promise he had made to his son.

I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for advancing this legislation, and Representative Fortenberry for his leadership on this bill.

I support passage, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

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