Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 395, I mistakenly voted ``nay'' when I had intended to vote ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Juneteenth Independence Day Celebration. Juneteenth, celebrated on the 19th of June, is a holiday that celebrates the emancipation of African Americans from slavery but has come to signify much more. It is celebrated in June, the month that the last African Americans were informed of their Emancipation.

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, which came into effect on January 1, 1863. Critically, following the conclusion of the Civil War, U.S. Government officials traversed through the South to enforce the Proclamation. It was not until June 19th, 1865, in Galveston, TX, that Union General Gordon Granger declared freedom for the last major vestige of slavery in the United States, marking one of the proudest days in all of African American history.

Mr. Speaker, Juneteenth Independence Day is a holiday that should not go without note. This date represents a crucial milestone in African American history and demonstrates the evolution of our Nation over the last century and a half. Today, Juneteenth commemorates African American freedom and emphasizes education and achievement. I encourage all of my constituents to take part in the day's festivities and also to reflect on the values of self-improvement, assessment, and future- planning which are consistent with the spirit of Juneteenth.

I thank my friend, and it's so good to see her energy and enthusiasm back on this floor with us today. We welcome her.

286 days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and addressed the number one problem that I hear about from my constituents, which is jobs for the American people.

I know that this bill raises very serious and important issues, and I applaud its authors and sponsors for bringing it to the House floor, but I think it's the wrong bill on the wrong day.

The President said that we should cut taxes for small businesses if they hire people. But we haven't taken a vote on that proposal, and we're not going to take one today.

The President said that we should put construction workers back to work building bridges and roads and our electric infrastructure, our intellectual infrastructure, but we're not voting on that proposal today.

The President said that firefighters and police officers and teachers who have been taken off the job should be put back on the job so they can spend money in the stores and the restaurants, but we're not voting on that proposal today, and we haven't voted it on it on any of the 286 days since the President proposed it.

Instead, we have the proposal in front of us that, again, is very serious, raises a lot of issues. But I suspect if most of us went back to our district today and said, ``What would you rather have us do, vote on three simple, clear ideas up or down on whether to create jobs for the American people or vote on this?'' I think they'd want us voting on the jobs bill.

Now, we have a version of that jobs bill that we have a chance to get on the floor, and that is Mr. Bishop's proposal that says the following: If you do business in the United States of America, if you sell your products to the American consumer, then your call center ought to be in the United States of America.

How many of our constituents, Madam Speaker, are tired of placing a call to a call center and you don't know where it is, the person at the other end of the phone doesn't know what you're saying and doesn't understand what you're asking about.

Should we be using American tax dollars to reward companies that outsource call center jobs? I think the answer is no.

This would be one simple and clear idea that we ought to put on this floor so the Members have a chance, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, to say, Let's take a vote on the proposition that you can't use American taxpayers' dollars to outsource American jobs in call centers. And then maybe some day, after 286 days, we'll finally get around to the President's idea to create jobs in small businesses in this country.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The RCA Heritage Program for its tireless efforts in preserving the name and legacy of RCA. For over sixty years, RCA served as a vanguard of progress not only in South Jersey, but in the country as a whole. RCA's visionary leadership and its dedication to industrial innovations led this company to become a world-renowned manufacturer of products for entertainment, communications, and national security. RCA also served as a critical component of the country's defense and manufacturing industries during World War II, giving the United States a significant technological advantage on the world stage. In having such a broad impact on the region, it is only right to preserve RCA's cultural and societal legacy.

The RCA Heritage Program, under the sponsorship of Rowan University, has worked to establish The RCA Heritage Program Museum, which will preserve the memory of RCA and educate future generations on its impact. In further promotion of education, The RCA Heritage Program established a scholarship available to South Jersey residents interested in pursuing a master's degree in electrical engineering at Rowan University.

With the help of former RCA employees, The RCA Heritage Program has brought together generations of South Jersey residents, collecting pieces of history which would otherwise be lost to time.

Mr. Speaker, The RCA Heritage Program's continuing mission to preserve the lasting legacy of RCA for South Jersey and its residents should not go unrecognized. I join all of South Jersey in paying tribute to this exceptional organization.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 10-year anniversary for one of the newest Institutes at the National Institutes of Health. The Congress authorized the creation of the National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering over a decade ago, and I am proud to say I was a cosponsor of the enacting legislation. Since 2002, the NIBIB has worked diligently towards its mission to develop new technologies that are combating a myriad of diseases and conditions. NIBIB is unique in the sense that unlike most Institutes at NIH, NIBIB doesn't focus on a particular body area. Its mission is not bound to a particular disease either. Instead, it fills a vital need: it creates the tools and technologies for clinicians and researchers to fight all diseases. In a way, we are all patient advocates for NIBIB.

Some of the technological advances include innovations like advanced imaging tools, such as functional MRI and PET/CT. These not only save lives by diagnosing disease noninvasively and earlier than ever before, but they have provided researchers in other areas of medicine new tools to study and combat their particular disease of focus. In its unique role at NIH, NIBIB is not only providing new bench-to-bedside diagnostics and therapies for patients, but also delivering novel bench-to-bench tools and technologies that are revolutionizing the way other researchers fight diseases in the laboratory.

In this vein, NIBIB is providing an enormously positive return on the taxpayers' investment. The therapies, diagnostics and treatments created by NIBIB research have forever changed patient care and the way we conduct research. But perhaps equally as important, these technologies are being commercialized and manufactured by the private sector here in the U.S. We are an exporter of these incredible technologies, created and manufactured by highly-skilled workers. And when the NIBIB delivers on the next game-changing technology, the U.S. will again be the home to those job-supporting companies.

With that, I would like to congratulate NIBIB, its Director, Dr. Rod Pettigrew, Deputy Director Dr. Belinda Seto and all of the dedicated staff that have made NIBIB a model of success. I hope my fellow colleagues can agree that these are important federal programs deserving of our sustained support.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 371, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

I thank my friend for yielding.

Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bernanke is on Capitol Hill today warning that if the Congress doesn't get the debt and deficit under control, we could be facing a fiscal collapse, a calamity. And he's right. And I think we all know that one of the ways to avoid a calamity is to move Americans from unemployment lines to payrolls.

But this is another day when the House will not consider legislation that would cut taxes for small businesses that hire people. This is another day when the House will not consider legislation that would rehire police officers, firefighters, teachers. This is another day when the House will not consider legislation to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our electronic infrastructure.

There is going to come a day when the House, I fear, will consider reductions in Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid to deal with the deficit problem. Now, we need to consider these kinds of issues because they're an important part of the deficit. But when we do, I think most Members would agree with the proposition--I think all Members would probably agree with the proposition--that we should live under the laws that we write. If the Congress is going to consider a change to Social Security, we should live with that change. If the Congress is going to consider a change to Medicare, we should live with that change. We say this to our constituents when we go back to our districts.

Let's vote for it today. We propose to put on the floor, as part of today's legislative agenda, legislation that would say, pure and simple, if there's a change to Social Security, Members of Congress will live under the same change. If there is a change to Medicare, Members of Congress will live under the same change. If there's a change to Medicaid, Members of Congress will live under the same change. I think we'd probably get a unanimous vote for that proposition.

Let's put it on the floor and affirm to the people of this country who pay the bills and serve the country, we live under the same laws that we write.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Woodbury Rotary Park's Memorial Walkway in Woodbury, NJ. This memorial is a special tribute to the unsung heroes who assisted the American war effort in both times of war and peace.

Construction of the walkway would not have been possible without the extraordinary efforts of The Rotary Club's Herbert A. Budd, Jr. A member since 1959 and two-time president of the organization, Mr. Budd raised $20,000 for the memorial's creation. Mr. Budd's hard work was aided by the contributions of those in the community whom I proudly recognize as playing a critical role in the memorial's construction.

This memorial, featuring an engraved recognition of all who served, reminds us all that ``Some gave all, all gave some.'' This monument serves to honor those who worked behind the scenes to give us a strong foundation upon which our forces relied.

Mr. Speaker, the Rotary Club, particularly Mr. Budd, and the surrounding community should be applauded for their efforts and commitment in building this memorial. This memorial represents the crucial role of the American people who have gone unannounced in serving America's forces. I encourage all of my constituents to visit this memorial and peacefully reflect upon such invaluable service.

Mr. Chair, I stand today in opposition to this legislation because it provides funding for the fundamentally flawed and wasteful Delaware Deepening project. Prior to the Army Corps' recent decision to partially fund this $300 million project, it had previously only been funded through Congressional earmarks for the previous 6 years.

In June of 2002 the General Accounting Office (report # GA0 02 604) found that the Army Corps grossly misrepresented the costs and benefits of the project. The GAO determined that the economic analysis provided for the project contained a number of ``material errors,'' ``miscalculations, invalid assumptions, and the use of significantly outdated information.'' Based on the GAO's findings, the benefit to cost ratio of the project is closer to 0.49 to 1 as opposed to the 1.4 to 1 originally asserted by the Army Corps. A re-analysis completed by the GAO in 2010 (report # GA0 10 420) came to the same conclusion that the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening would not provide a good return on investment for the taxpayers. The latest re-analysis completed by the Army Corps last year fails to reexamine the costs. It also makes highly questionable projections about future benefits based on limited historical data.

The OMB, at President Obama's direction, has said the federal government should only provide funding for projects that are a demonstrated benefit for the nation; i.e. projects that have a benefit cost ratio of at least 2.5 to 1. As noted by the Corps of Engineers, the Delaware River Deepening is the only navigation project nationwide that had a benefit cost ratio less than the 2.5 minimum criteria. Previous Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have not supported this project because it makes no economic sense.

Mr. Chair, there also continues to be an overwhelming number of serious environmental concerns raised by state and federal environmental protection agencies and experts about the project's impact on drinking water, commercial and recreational fish, shellfish, wetlands, wildlife, water quality--not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars of economic revenue and jobs these natural resources support. This project is an economic loser and Congress should not be in the business of funding old earmarks.

I congratulate my colleague from New Jersey and you, Mr. Visclosky, for your very diligent and focused work on this bill. I know it was difficult.

Mr. Chairman, we thank these Members for their leadership.

Today, the people of the United States sent about $1 billion overseas to countries from whom we bought imported oil. This is $1 billion that could have been spent to employ American construction workers, to give more activities to American research scientists, to reward the investment of American entrepreneurs, and to create domestic energy and American jobs here in the United States.

One of the most effective ways to create a nearly $200 billion annual stimulus program paid for entirely by private sector dollars and not by government would be to dramatically reduce the amount of oil we import into our country. This is an issue on which I think there is strong agreement. We obviously part company on exactly how to do that, and I think this bill illustrates three of the ways in which there is some disagreement.

Let me begin by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for what I view as a very wise decision to make a funding investment in nuclear waste disposal at the Yucca Mountain facility. This is a very controversial issue, particularly in the other body, but I think that clean and well-managed nuclear energy is a key part of this country's economic future. Sadly, there has been a backpedaling from years of research and investment in the Yucca Mountain facility.

I think that the geological evidence is compelling, and I think that the national security arguments are compelling. I think that the best way for us to dispose of nuclear waste at one site is as isolated from any population center and geologically insulated from any water table that would be nearby. I think that the Yucca Mountain site has been proven to be the right move. I think for unfortunate political situations we've not invested in that.

I commend the chairman and the ranking member for reversing that decision to the extent possible in this bill and for moving forward with the further exploration of that option.

One of the areas of the bill in which I would agree with Mr. Visclosky is somewhat disappointing is its relatively meager investment in alternative renewable energy. Now, I do think, as the President has said and as our Speaker has said, that an all-of-the-above energy independence policy is the right choice for our country. So we must understand that investing in wind or solar or geothermal or hydrogen is not meant to be completely in lieu of more traditional fuels. It's meant to be a supplement and a transition.

I think that the transition here is insufficient for the possibility of powering our country through wind and the growing solar industry. Our State of New Jersey is actually number two in solar energy in the country, which is, I think, a tribute to our innovation given our relative climatological disadvantage relative to other States. There is promising research in hydrogen and other areas. I think that we are being, frankly, somewhat shortsighted and penny-wise and pound-foolish by not making a more robust investment in these areas of alternative energy in this bill, which leads me to my third point.

I understand the justification, not by the subcommittee chairman or the ranking member, but by the budget resolution that was passed. The justification for what I view as an unduly meager investment in alternative energy is because of the budget allocations adopted by the House several weeks ago.

I thank the gentleman.

That budget allocation was short of the agreement that the majority and minority in the House and Senate struck last year on August 1. We've adhered to that agreement in so many other ways. I think the right thing to do is what the other body is likely to do, which is to fund these appropriations bills at levels consistent with that August 1 agreement.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we will and should be back in this Chamber at some point this year enacting final legislation that is consistent with that August 1 agreement. That meager increase, that small increase in allocations, would, in my view, go a long way toward funding the wind and solar and hydrogen and other alternative energies that we should be seeking.

Let's continue to try to work together as the authors of this bill have. Let's try to truly have an energy independence policy where, instead of sending $1 billion a day to the Middle East, we are investing $1 billion a day of private sector money in manufacturing, innovation, and economic growth here in the United States. This bill, I think, makes an important step in that direction.

I commend the authors, but look forward to even a better result later in the year when the bill comes back from the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Florida for yielding and for putting deeds ahead of words when it comes serving our veterans, as I know the full committee does as well. This is an issue on which there is no Republican, Democrat, no liberal, conservative divide. There's unanimity we should put our deeds first and our words second. I commend my friend from Florida for being an exemplar of that principle.

No member of our armed services should ever be told that a custody decision involving their children depends solely on the fact that they have been deployed or will be deployed. Never should that happen.

Now, in the past, there's been arguments, frankly, from the other body against this provision on the argument that we must choose between the best interest of the child and the sovereign parental rights of our servicemembers. This is a false and inaccurate choice.

This bill starts from the premise that the best interest of the child is the paramount value. It in no way disrupts or subverts any State law in that respect, but it adds to that provision a provision that must be added by Federal law, because there must be a uniform standard since it's the Federal Government that is deciding who will be deployed and when. So, supplemental to the guiding principle of the best interest of the child is a principle in this bill that says that deployment cannot be the sole reason for a decision to deprive a man or woman of custody of his or her child.

Now, it strikes me that this is a complex legal issue. I will confess to that. But morally, this is a distinct, clear, and open issue. We all support the best interest of the child. But I think that we all support, and I think in a few minutes we're going to have a vote that demonstrates that we all support, the principle that the sovereignty of parenthood should not be forfeited by taking the oath of office to serve one's country in uniform. This should never happen.

So, again, here is what this means. It means that no child would ever be placed in a situation that's not in his or her best interest in the decision of the decisionmaker, of the judge or the Court. None of us wants that. But it also means that any State or any judge that says the sole reason that we are depriving a man or woman of custody of his or her son or daughter is because they volunteered to serve their country and followed an order to be deployed or are about to follow an order to be deployed.

This is morally clear. It is legally correct, and I hope it will be unanimously supported by the ladies and gentlemen of the House.

I think I have finally found the content of the secret agreement between the President and the Russians we keep hearing about. I want to read you what I have heard:

My goal is the total elimination of nuclear weapons. If we

can get these fellows, the Russians, back to the table and

get them to start down that road of mutual reduction, then

they might find out what common sense it would mean to

eliminate them.

These are the secret words that were said. But they weren't said by Barack Obama. They were said by Ronald Reagan in 1983.

The careful elimination of nuclear weapons has been a bipartisan and wise goal of this country for three decades. We have the capability to destroy the world 24 times over. We are rationally and systematically negotiating with Russia to try to reduce the risk of accident, theft, or rogue-state behavior while maintaining our sacred sovereign duty to defend ourselves at all times.

This amendment interferes with that wise and bipartisan process. It sends this President, or any President, into negotiations with a set of preconceived notions which limit his or her ability to make the best deal on behalf of the United States--a deal which, of course, would have to be ratified by the United States Senate if it were to make material changes in the START agreement.

From Reagan through Bush through Clinton through George W. Bush and now through President Obama, a wise bipartisan plan to protect our country but reduce the risk of nuclear holocaust. This amendment stands in the way of that wise bipartisan tradition--and it should be defeated.

Madam Speaker, I hereby submit the enclosed letters:

Building and Construction

Trades Department--AFL CIO

Washington, DC, May 4, 2012.

Rep. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn HOB,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The House Armed Services Committee has

adopted legislation that would seriously weaken worker safety

& health protections at Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear

weapons complex. The legislation would not only transfer

worker safety & health responsibilities from the DOE's Office

of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) to the National Nuclear

Security Administration (NNSA), but would also shift the

entire safety & health program to ``performance-based''

oversight thereby effectively eliminating current health and

safety standards that impose fines and penalties for

violations. This would be a terrible mistake and we are

strongly opposed to any such tinkering with the lives of our

many members working at these facilities.

For years the BCTD has made the safety & health of these

workers one of our highest priorities. We have worked with

successive Administrations to develop the current program

that the proposed legislation would now effectively destroy.

As you might imagine the work that our members perform at

these facilities is, by its very nature, inherently dangerous

and requires the highest possible level of care and

protection.

According to a recent report by the Project on Government

Oversight; unlike the private sector, nuclear weapons

facilities are ultra-hazardous, have very large radioactive

waste legacies, excess cancer and beryllium disease among its

employees, a long history of safety problems, and contractor

mismanagement enabled by self-regulation. For more than 20

years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has listed

DOE's nuclear weapons program on its high risk list of

programs most vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse.

By eliminating the role of the DOE's HSS for oversight and

enforcement of safety & health and requiring only performance

standards, the legislation would substitute existing DOE

standards with those of OSHA. In some critical cases DOE's

standards are more stringent than OSHA especially with

respect to the standard for Beryllium that this change would

eliminate. DOE's Beryllium worker exposure standard is 10

times as protective as federal OSHA's. The legislation would

now turn over Beryllium protection to the tender mercies of

the National Laboratories and other DOE contractors even

though, in 2010, DOE fined the Livermore Lab (LLNL) some

$200,000 for a series of Beryllium violations.

Moreover, the bill eliminates the ALARA radiation exposure

standard (As Low As (is) Reasonably Achievable) and reverts

back to a worker radiation concept used 40 years ago called

ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable); a time when workers

were exposed to outrageous levels of radiation. This is

completely unacceptable, and our members at the weapons

facilities will simply not stand for it.

Since its creation, we have worked closely with HSS in

developing its worker safety & health program including the

Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program and ALARA

radiation exposure standard that have been integrated into

the work culture at the DOE facilities. These programs have

been accepted by the workforce and are essential to a safe

and more productive workplace.

To now seek to disrupt the HSS safety & health program by

transferring it to NNSA and weakening the current standards

of protection makes no sense. Other than to satisfy the

demands of the National Laboratories and contractors, there

is little or no justification for this proposal and we appeal

to you to stop it. The health, safety and lives of the men

and women who do the dangerous work at these facilities

demand no less.

Sincerely,

Sean McGarvey,

President.

I thank my friend.

I rise to respectfully disagree with the amendment offered by a person for whom I have great respect. I know that he offers this amendment because he certainly wants to avoid a situation where our country arbitrarily takes innocent human life. I think he's right to have that concern, and I think it's one that is widely held. I think that the issue raised by this amendment is whether others can be entrusted with striking that same balance or whether the Congress should enact a unilateral prohibition against certain kinds of activities.

When the decision-makers who operate these drone strikes make a decision, they have to strike this balance between our moral obligation to avoid arbitrary attacks on innocent people and our moral obligation to defend our country. And I think that they are capable of striking that balance, and I frankly think that a blanket prohibition against the use of these strikes--except in circumstances where we know the identity of the target--unduly restricts them in making that judgment.

I certainly understand and sympathize with the goal of this amendment. But because I think it unduly restricts our options, I would urge its defeat.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

If a suspected terrorist can only be tried successfully in a military commission because there are concerns about jeopardizing the confidentiality of classified information or other concerns, then I emphatically agree that that person should be tried in a military commission. But to presuppose that all such detainees properly belong in a military commission, I think, is a mistake, for two reasons.

First, it really prejudges the record of evidence and the standing of law in that case when we're not necessarily competent to do that. That is a decision the prosecutors ought to make. Secondly, I think, although it's not the intention of the authors, I'm sure, it belies a certain lack of confidence in our constitutional system of criminal justice.

We should be proud of our system. It's one that operates on principles of fairness, and it fairly and expeditiously determines guilt or innocence. I think to abandon that system in all cases and under all circumstances not only unwisely prejudges the facts of these cases but also unwittingly undercuts confidence in our Constitution and in our Article III courts. For that reason, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Everyone here is alarmed, Mr. Chairman, about the possibility of a nuclear attack on the

United States. We also should be alarmed about sticking to the facts in the debate.

The fact is we are talking about a weapons system here that failed two tests in 2010 and that hasn't passed a test since 2008. The fact is that, in the meantime, we have a robust, successful, tested regional system that can protect the homeland, the country, and the fact is that the general who runs this program said:

In the program right now, we are addressing and are

prepared to come back to flight testing, but we've had two

failures, and no matter what budget we're dedicating, we have

to get over those flight test failures.

Fix it first. Fund it later. Support the Polis amendment.