Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

I just wanted to describe two amendments that I have that the chairman and the leadership were kind enough to include en bloc.

I am a member of the United States commission on research and development in the intelligence community. I won't go through the whole report--in fact, it's being declassified in part now--but we talk about the great looming threat to our technological advantage in the intelligence arena--the shortage of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.

I have an amendment directing the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress within 60 days from this bill on whether the science, mathematics, and research transformation of the SMART scholarship program is providing adequate help to undergraduate and graduate students to meet our scientific and technical needs.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Rules Committee making this amendment in order, My amendment's purpose is to ensure that the United States defense and intelligence communities have the necessary scientific and technical talent in the years ahead so that our nation maintains its ability to avoid strategic surprise and preserve our technological edge against known or potential opponents.

For the last 18 months, I have served as a member of the United States Commission on Research and Development in the Intelligence Community. Although the Commission was created in law as part of the annual Intelligence Authorization Act passed a decade ago, it was not funded and no Commissioners were appointed until the Fiscal Year 2012 budget was passed. Indeed, funding for the Commission was blocked for several years by the then chairman of HPSCI. The Commission did not formally start meeting until early 2012. My colleague from Texas, Rep. Conaway, is also a member of the Commission, as are Senators Mark Warner of Virginia and Dan Coats of Indiana. The balance of the commission is made up of former government officials with S&T expertise, a former NSC official, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, a Wall Street banker, and a university president with a deep scientific background, among others.

Our mandate was to examine the current state of the IC's R&D efforts & make recommendations for changes where necessary. Classified and unclassified versions of our report were delivered to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence just before Memorial Day, and the unclassified version will be released soon, most likely before the July 4th holiday. I encourage all Members to take the time to review the full classified report at their earliest convenience.

Because the unclassified version remains under an embargo for the moment, I cannot discuss directly our key findings. However, I can and will give you this Commissioner's view on the single greatest looming threat to our technological advantage in the intelligence arena: a potential shortage of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.

My amendment seeks to address that potential shortage by directing the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress within 60 days of the enactment of this bill on whether the Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation or SMART scholarship program is providing the necessary number of undergraduate students to meet our scientific and technical needs, specifically in the defense and intelligence communities. If the Secretary assess that the existing SMART program will not be sufficient, he is to make recommendations to Congress on what measures would be necessary to ensure our scientific and technical talent pipeline is sufficient to meet our projected needs.

I offer this amendment because I have already seen evidence that such an assessment is overdue and urgently needed.

At a recent cyber briefing on the Hill, CYBERCOM officials told my staff that NSA is seeing a marked increase in employees asking to have resumes undergo clearance reviews so they can look for other jobs. During my own visit to some other NSA facilities in the DC metro area last year, I heard from NSA officials that some universities are now telling NSA--in writing--that their pay scales are not sufficiently competitive. These are warning signs of a potential skilled personnel shortage in the S&T components of the IC, and the Commission found others as you will see in our report. If adopted, this amendment will allow us to take a much needed step towards assessing our defense and intelligence personnel needs in the areas of science, technology, mathematics and engineering. Accordingly, I urge adoption of my amendment.

I have another amendment that grew out of a suicide tragedy in my district.

This amendment would allow any State adjutant general to request information for any Individual Ready Reserve or any individual mobilization augmentee living in the State so that the adjutant general can provide suicide prevention and outrage services for such Reservists.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that suicide outreach and prevention programs reach specific at-risk populations of Reservists.

Sergeant Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey did two combat tours in Iraq. In between and after those tours, he sought treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Because Sgt. Bean was a member of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)--a pool of Reserve soldiers not assigned to any unit but available for mobilization if needed--he could not get treatment for his condition because the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs refused to take ownership of Sgt. Bean and the thousands like him. Since his death in the fall of 2008, I have worked in a bipartisan way to secure additional funding for suicide prevention and outreach services for our active duty, Guard and Reserve members, and for our veterans. One component of that outreach effort must involve our state National Guard Adjutant Generals.

My amendment would allow any state AG to request contact information for any IRR or Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) living in their state so that the AG can provide suicide prevention and outreach services to such Reservists.

Within my own state, our extremely successful Vet2Vet and the national Vets4Warriors program have been providing peer-to-peer counseling services for years. Its success was so great--no servicemember who used the program took his or her life--that the 2010 DoD Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide by Members of the Armed Forces recommended that Vet2Vet should be examined as a potential national model. In December 2011, the National Guard Bureau decided to support a parallel, national program to Vet2Vet, named Vets4Warriors to denote its national character, and designated it as the program of record for Guard personnel nationwide who were seeking counseling services.

The key reason these programs work so well is that every person who takes a call from a servicemember or veteran is also a former servicemember. This peer-to-peer connection is vital in building the trust necessary to get a soldier or veteran with a problem to open up about their experiences, fears, needs and hopes. Both Vet2Vet and Vets4Warriors work in direct partnership with the New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and thus passing this amendment would allow all Adjutant Generals, including New Jersey's, to conduct targeted suicide prevention and outreach to IRR and IMA members in their states.

Mr. Chairman, the suicide epidemic sweeping our armed forces can only eliminated if we utilize every tool at our disposal to reach every servicemember or veteran who may be at risk. Passing this amendment would give us one more such tool, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the Rules Committee and the leadership of the Armed Services Committee for making this amendment in order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment's purpose is simple: to eliminate the missile defense-related portions of the bill with the exception of the relatively successful Iron Dome program.

As some of you may know, I have been involved with arms control issues for decades, since I was a part of the U.S. Geneva delegation sent to investigate the then-Soviet phased array radar in Krasnoyarsk in the early 1980s. My training as a physicist, as well as the decades I've spent dealing with these issues, long ago led me to conclude a couple of things: effective strategic ballistic missile defense systems have not been and are not likely to be technically feasible; and, second, attempting to build them only fuels the international arms race.

If you don't believe the latter point, let me quote from a Russian Television story on June 8 of this year:

Russia's Strategic Missile Forces have reported a

successful launch of a next-generation ICBM that can

supposedly pierce any antiballistic missile system. The test

came after the U.S. announced it would resume its ABM program

in Europe.

That is a description of the arms race that should have ended years ago.

The article goes on to quote Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin who says that the new Russian ICBM was a ``missile defense killer. Neither current nor future American missile defense systems will be able to prevent that missile from hitting the target dead on.''

Yes, arms race.

Just as it has for over 30 years, our continued pursuit of a strategic ballistic missile defense system is perpetuating the arms race, in this case between the United States and Russia, and would perpetuate arms races between the United States and China or others. It is also an expense we cannot afford.

The Missile Defense Agency itself estimates that since fiscal year 1985, Congress has appropriated $149.5 billion for strategic ballistic missile defense programs, and the system has still never been tested successfully against any of the kind of real-world threats offered by missiles equipped with decoys, jammers, and so on.

This bill proposes to continue throwing good money after bad, with one exception: the tactical Iron Dome missile defense system. Our Israeli allies, with funding approved by this Congress and that I have supported, and many here have supported, have developed what is arguably the best, and certainly most well-tested, tactical missile defense system in the world. It is not perfect, and the missile defense experts, both here and in Israel, continue to debate the exact kill rate, which Israeli officials claim is 84 percent. What is clear is that this system is more practical and more immediately useful for the defense of Israel than our strategic defense system is for us.

What my amendment would do is stop the United States from throwing more money at a failed, politically destabilizing strategic missile defense system and instead would allow continuing funding for further development of efforts for Iron Dome and tactical systems like that-- the kind of systems that may help save lives in Israel and save lives of deployed American troops should they face opponents like North Korea or Iran.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the time remaining.

I thank the Chair.

I will just quickly say then, in closing, that the desire for a strategic missile defense system may be as strong as it ever has been; but the demonstrations, the accomplishments of the work towards such a system are no further along than they have been for decades.

We can repeal legislation--we could repeal, perhaps, ObamaCare if the other side had its way--but we cannot repeal the laws of physics, and long experience with this tells me this is a wasteful program. The Iron Dome tactical system and systems like that, on the other hand, are worth pursuing, and I propose keeping that funding intact.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friends and colleagues in the New Jersey delegation for organizing this tribute to the late Senator Frank Lautenberg.

This is a personal loss as well as a loss for New Jersey and for this Nation. I don't think there has been, nor do I think there will ever be, anybody quite like Frank Lautenberg in the United States Senate.

What stands out to so many about Frank is that he never forgot his humble beginnings. He was the son of immigrants who was born and raised among the silk mills of Paterson. His father died while he was serving in the Second World War--and ``serve'' is the right word. He saw service as his duty, as his life--serving other people, never forgetting the common person and the common good. The GI Bill sent him to Columbia University, and he always felt grateful for that and felt a need to pay back.

Much has been said in recent days about Frank's successful business career. And it certainly was a success. The qualities that drove Frank to be a successful businessman also made him an exemplary legislator. Frank was dogged; he was persistent. His colleagues in the Senate would sometimes laugh or smile about that--''Here comes Frank again to try to twist our arms.'' Frank did his homework; he knew what he was talking about, and he just kept fighting for equality of opportunity, for fairness, for safety, for ever-expanding access to the American Dream.

Frank's legislative legacy will remain relevant for generations to come. He fought tirelessly to keep trains and buses safe, to promote public health, to safeguard chemical plants, to keep cigarettes out of airplanes, and so much more. But what stands out in my mind is what Frank did to prevent drunk driving. As part of his transportation work, Frank established limits on blood alcohol levels and raised the drinking age. Today, you could fill several football stadiums with people who are alive only because of Frank Lautenberg--and not one of them knows who they are.

Throughout his time in the Senate, Frank was always thinking about the ordinary person. He never forgot that they were the people who had sent him to serve, he never stopped fighting, and the people of New Jersey knew that. They knew they had somebody in the Senate who was looking out for them.

Frank and I worked on a number of important issues together. From strengthening and securing our rail system to combating bullying with the Tyler Clementi bill, I always relished the opportunity to work with such a premier

legislator as Frank was. I feel this loss very personally.

I again send my most heartfelt condolences to Bonnie and to Frank's children and grandchildren. I hope they find comfort in knowing that his ideas and his legacy will live on through the many lives he saved and touched.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this bill.

I agree with my colleague and our ranking member on the full committee, Rep. Lowey of New York, that this bill will help us do all we can to help bring down the disability claims backlog, which unfortunately is at record levels. I am also very grateful to the committee for including an additional $20 million dollars for suicide prevention and outreach services for our veterans--the third such year I've made such a request. I also noted with satisfaction the committee's inclusion of language directing the VA to work far more closely with community-based organizations that have successful programs to prevent suicides. Indeed, the most successful of these programs in the nation is the Vets4Warriors program at the University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey. My late friend, Senator Lautenberg, worked closely with me to support this program and bring it to the attention of senior VA

and Pentagon officials. The VA should have a direct partnership with Vets4Warriors and I will certainly continue to press for that, and am very happy to have the committee's support for that effort.

Madam Chair, while I will support this bill I do not support the process that brought it to the floor today. This bill came up under a rule that enshrines sequester, cutting another $90 billion in overall funding for the government at a time when it has become clear to all but the most obtuse among us that the sequester has caused real harm to real people. The self-executing rule under which this bill is being considered will cause still more harm--not directly to our veterans, but to millions of other Americans from the additional draconian cuts the majority is seeking to impose. That's why this bill and the Homeland Security bill are under a veto threat from the President, and rightly so. I urge my Republican colleagues to abandon the budget gamesmanship, drop Sequester 2.0, and work with us and the President to implement a budget that is fair to all Americans.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bill, though not in support of the process that brought it to the House floor.

I am pleased that the overall committee process that produced this bill was bipartisan. For the first time in several years, this bill actually provides slightly more money for the State and Local Grant program, which funds such critical community grant programs like SAFER, AFG, and the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. Specifically, the bill provides $1.5 billion for State and Local Grants, which is $456.8 million above the request and $35.4 million above the FY2013 enacted level. This is still far less than what our firefighters, EMS and other first responders need to replace aging equipment and hire needed additional personnel, but it is nonetheless movement in the right direction.

Unfortunately, that positive development is offset by the failure of this bill to reverse the effects of sequester. TSA is addressing its sequestration-related funding shortfalls in part with a reduction in overtime and a freeze on hiring of new transportation security officers, which will lead to longer checkpoint lines at airports during peak summer travel season. CBP reduced overtime for CBP Officers, leading to significant increases in wait times at air, land, and sea ports of entry for citizens and international commerce. Coast Guard drug and migrant interdiction efforts have been reduced substantially, increasing the flow of narcotics into the United States. Sequestration cut $928 million from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), threatening to reduce funds available to help future victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters recover and rebuild. This is no way to run a government, and I again urge the House majority to bring a bill to the floor that permanently overturns sequester. The American people want it, they need it, and we should do it today.

Madam Chair, I was attending the funeral of our late Senate colleague Frank Lautenberg earlier today in New York City. I missed several rollcall votes on amendments to this bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the Moore amendment (rollcall No. 194), ``yes'' on the Polis amendment (rollcall No. 195), ``yes'' on the Heck amendment (rollcall No. 196), ``yes'' on the Garcia amendment (rollcall No. 197), and ``yes'' on the Deutch amendment (rollcall No. 198).

We mark with sorrow and with admiration the loss of Frank Lautenberg--a loss to Bonnie and his family, a loss to this Congress, a loss to New Jersey, a loss to America.

He served in the Army as a youngster. His father died while he was serving in the Second World War--and ``serve'' is the right word. He saw service as his duty, as his life--serving other people, never forgetting the common person and the common good. Whether he was working for public health or individual health care or education or was helping prevent bullying in schools or was teaching foreign languages or was providing for safety in chemical plants, he was thinking about the ordinary person. He never forgot that, he never stopped fighting, and the people of New Jersey knew that. They knew they had somebody in the Senate who was looking out for them.

What I think of most is his work that he did on the Transportation Subcommittee about the blood alcohol level and drunk driving. He did more than any other single person in this country to prevent drunk driving. You could fill many football stadiums with

people who are alive today because of Frank Lautenberg. The interesting thing is that not one of them would know who they are.

We have a lot to be grateful for to Frank Lautenberg, and his legacy is something that we should work hard to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York, a good friend; and I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. This comes down to an important question of American domestic policy: how important is it to us as a country to make college possible and accessible for students so they can improve their lives and improve our country.

Some of the great historic moments of American policy, the creation of the land grant colleges, the GI Bill, providing student loans, were directed toward increasing access to higher education. And today, the House will vote on a bill that would reverse decades of progress. It would, in effect, transform the Federal Government into a greedy Wall Street bank, charging students punitive and wildly variable interest rates while banking billions in profits. Yes, the government would reap profits derived from students and recent students.

The authors of this bill see this as government revenue. Instead of collecting taxes, they do it through a back door, trying to pay down the deficit on the backs of students.

So today we have a choice: Do we make college more expensive for our low-income and middle class students? For me, the clear answer is ``no.'' It's wrong. It's shortsighted. It's not right for students. It's not right for families, and it's not right for our economy.

The Rules Committee could have given us a bill to lock in low rates for student loans, in the national interest, not to collect interest from students. But instead, they want to balance the budget on the backs of students and recent students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to say that we have now passed 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the first time in human history--in fact, for the first time in several million years.

This is, indeed, a milestone, but it should not be a breaking point. We have done damage to our climate through human activities. If we continue to fill our atmosphere with carbon and other greenhouse gases, then, yes, we will begin to experience irreversible changes to the planet.

Over the last century, we have demonstrated how human actions-- especially the unregulated consumption of fossil fuels--can harm our planet and upset human welfare, as we've seen with historic droughts, fires, floods, and superstorms more and more.

Yesterday, the House again voted to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that represents a long-term reliance on fossil energy and would commit us to the path toward irreversible global warming and climate change.

The political decisions we make today will decide the future. We must reduce our dependence on conventional fuels and redirect our policies.

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

Let me begin where the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) completed his remarks.

We are experiencing climate change. It is very expensive in lives and dollars. It is the result of the way we produce and use energy. We must make these points clear. What we are talking about with this legislation is going further down this dangerous, deadly road.

Now, beyond that, this legislation we are considering today represents a complete disregard of the effect of tar sands oil on our environment and our economy. This bill would ask the United States to bear all of the environmental risk without any appreciable rewards.

Less than 2 months ago, in Mayflower, Arkansas--a typical American small town--the 2,234 residents of that Arkansas River town learned what we mean by ``risk'' from an oil pipeline. As much as 7,000 barrels of oil spilled into neighboring communities and the environment.

This oil was tar sands oil. This pipeline was part of this Canadian pipeline system that we are talking about today. But rather than ensuring that, if we're going to build the Keystone pipeline to transport this dirty, particularly dirty, oil across the United States, that we first ensure that we have proper protections for our environment, this bill would take us in completely the opposite direction, while doing nothing to ensure that Keystone oil would enhance our energy security. There's nothing whatsoever in this bill to require that the Keystone oil actually stay in the United States.

The jobs that will be created by this, according to the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the U.S. State Department, the jobs that would be created over the long term number in the few dozen--like 35-- not in the thousands. Yes, there will be some construction jobs--and I want to assure our working Americans that we want jobs for them--but we want sustainable jobs that come from clean energy. They are available-- they are available today--if we would stop going down this mistaken road.

The proposed pipeline would transport tar sands oil from Canada through the United States to free trade zones in Texas for export. All risk, no reward. We are just a bypass. This is not oil that's coming to improve the lives of Americans, to give us energy to power our cars or our industries. No. This is just passing through us, with the risk of a spill, with the problems to the environment that might result. It ignores the lessons of the recent Exxon pipeline spill in Arkansas and the tar sands spill in Michigan. It does nothing to close a loophole that currently allows tar sands oil to avoid paying taxes into the oil spill cleanup fund--that's right--because this bitumen, this product that comes out of the tar sands, is defined as ``not oil'' for the purposes of paying into the oil spill liability trust fund. So, it gets a free ride through the United States on its way to foreign countries.

If we're going to consider this bill, at least let's use it as an opportunity to close the tar sands loophole and ensure that when the oil spills occur--I'll grant to the other side that this may be a safe pipeline, but there is no such thing as a perfectly safe pipeline--and when the oil spills occur, let's have the money there to clean it up.

This bill goes on to declare that a Presidential permit is not required for a trans-border project and that all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty would be deemed to have been satisfied, even if they haven't been satisfied.

This is a bad deal for our country. This legislation does nothing to guarantee our energy security. All risk, no reward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a senior member of the committee and one who understands that this pipeline does not help our energy security and puts our environment at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), who understands that oil passing through this country on the way to other countries does not improve our energy independence.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the time remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time until the other side is ready to close.

Yes, I believe that is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

As we've heard, this is a bill that gives a Canadian company a sweetheart deal. It deems that all the conditions have been met, even if they haven't been. It takes a very dirty product, ships it through the United States, where we bear the risk of an oil spill. It's shipped to other countries. The U.S. consumer, the U.S. businessperson, the U.S. economy derives little to no benefit from this. All risk, no reward.

The TransCanada Keystone pipeline, the existing part of it, which would be connected to this proposed pipeline, experienced 12 separate oil spills in 2010. In the United States, there are typically more than 3 million gallons spilled from pipelines, so don't tell me that this is without risk.

As for helping the economy, we would like to have good, long-lasting jobs for Americans. This is not the way to do it. It does not do it. The long-lasting jobs number in the dozens, not the thousands.

So this very dirty oil will not increase U.S. energy security. It certainly will not lower energy prices, which are determined on the world market and through various manipulations here.

This clearly is not in the interest of the American consumer or American business. There's nothing in this bill to require that oil from this pipeline stay in the United States. There's nothing to close the tax loophole that allows tar sands oil to avoid paying for oil cleanup. In fact, I note with some irony here that some members of the majority who have spoken today in favor of this legislation to expedite the pipeline construction have asked the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to fix this oil spill liability trust fund loophole, in other words, to see that this is not exempt from paying into the oil spill trust fund. But the irony is they don't want to fix it now; they want to fix it sometime in the future in an as-of-yet imaginative or conjectural tax reform.

If they really wanted to fix it, this would be the time to do it, rather than to take a bill and ask for streamlined, no-questions-asked approval: take the executive branch out of the decision, give the sweetheart deal to the Canadian company, and close the books. We would regret it if that happened.

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

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) simply requires that the oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline, the refined products made from the oil as well, stay in the United States except under certain circumstances.

Now, the proponents of the Keystone pipeline, as we've heard today, say it is important for U.S. energy security. That can't be true if the oil just passes through the United States on its way to other countries, and there is nothing in the underlying legislation that would require that the oil transported through the Keystone pipeline, or the refined fuels produced from that oil, stay in the United States to benefit American consumers.

In fact, when the president of TransCanada, who got a sweetheart deal through this legislation, was asked whether he would commit to keeping the Keystone tar sands oil and the refined fuels in the United States, he said, no. That's why we need to adopt this amendment.

U.S. oil consumption peaked in 2005. It's declined by more than 10 percent since then. During the same period, U.S. petroleum production increased 38 percent.

So how is this balanced?

We're exporting it.

Now, that's not necessarily bad. For years, the import of oil hurt our balance of trade. But in 2011, the United States became a net exporter of petroleum products for the first time in half a century. We've exported 3 million barrels per day of petroleum products, and in 2012, exports increased to 3.2 million barrels per day.

The Keystone pipeline would transport the dirtiest oil in the world from Canada, through the United States, to refineries on the gulf coast, where it would be exported, tax-free, to foreign countries.

This is just a pipeline, about three-dozen permanent workers assigned to this pipeline. Otherwise, all we get from this is the risk of a spill.

According to the Energy Information Administration, more than 76 percent of the current U.S. petroleum exports come from the gulf coast. In fact, 60 percent of the gas, and 42 percent of the diesel produced at Texas gulf coast refineries was exported.

That fact, that the refined product will be exported, is not speculation. Look at the business plans of Valero, one of the Nation's largest refineries, which operates several facilities on the gulf coast.

Valero's 2012 annual report claims that the U.S. markets are oversupplied to the point where the company's chief executive, Bill Kless, recently said, ``There's so much oil, it's got to be moving. Our view is that it's flooding the gulf coast.''

And the solution?

Well, Valero is shipping domestically produced crude to Canada for refining under a license that allows the company to send up to 90,000 barrels a day for the next year. It's more than double what we exported to Canada last year.

That's right. One of the largest U.S. refiners in the gulf wants to massively increase exports of American crude to Canada at the same time that we are passing this legislation to send Canadian tar sands oil to the gulf coast. I would like to ask the proponents of this to explain how this makes sense.

The president of the American Petroleum Institute and the CEO of ConocoPhillips have said that we should change U.S. law to allow for the expanded exports of domestically produced oil.

Well, the re-export of crude oil is already allowed under current law. Without my amendment, crude oil that comes out of Keystone could circumvent U.S. refineries and be exported as crude. I ask my colleagues to think hard about how that helps America.

The Keystone XL pipeline would ask the United States to bear all of the environmental risk of transporting the dirtiest oil in the world without ensuring that U.S. consumers or our energy security see any benefits from this.

If the proponents of this legislation are serious about ensuring that the Keystone XL pipeline really does enhance U.S. energy security, they will vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 2013 I missed a series of votes related to H.R. 1062, the so-called ``SEC Regulatory Accountability Act'', due to a prior commitment to escort my mother as she received an honorary doctorate from the West Virginia University. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Hurt amendment, ``yes'' on the Maloney amendment, ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1062, which should be called the ``Wall Street Protection Act.'' The intent of this legislation is to cripple the ability of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to do its job--to create rules which protect investors. The SEC is already federally mandated to conduct analyses of their proposed regulations. The hurdles set by this legislation are unrealistic and duplicative. Even worse, this legislation would create an environment with less effective regulations, leaving average American investors on their own. The cost to individual families and to our economy from unregulated misbehavior and malfeasance in our financial industries is high.

This Congress should not continue to waste time padding the pockets of Wall Street executives. Instead, this Congress needs to take action on today's real issues: creating jobs, encouraging Americans to make investments in their retirements, and protecting middle class families and consumers.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 45, the ``Patients' Rights Repeal Act.''

Today's vote will mark the 37th time that this House will vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It was only ten months ago when I spoke in opposition to the same bill being considered today. I would like to remind my colleagues of what repealing health care reform would mean for the Central New Jerseyans whom I represent.

Take, for example, Matt from West Windsor. Matt wrote me, ``I graduated from college this past May and am currently working at a job with new health insurance. I have a preexisting condition, and, shockingly, I truly would be without insurance and in big trouble if this legislation is reversed.''

Carolyn from East Brunswick contacted me to say she had been laid off and her COBRA benefits were about to expire. Because of the

Affordable Care Act, she could enroll at age 25 as a dependent on her father's Federal employee benefits plan.

Mary from Princeton wrote to me that her son ``has cystic fibrosis and he would be subject to both the lifetime cap on benefits and the denial because of preexisting conditions were it not for the provisions of the health reform.''

Matt, Carolyn, and Mary's examples are not just anecdotal: they are representative of the numerous affordable and comprehensive health coverage benefits that New Jerseyans have gained under health care reform--as well as what they stand to lose if the Affordable Care Act were repealed.

For example, in addition to Matt, who was able to gain coverage as result of health care reform despite his pre-existing conditions, 1,343 previously uninsured residents of New Jersey who were locked out of the coverage system because of a pre-existing condition are now insured through a new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, which receives finding from the Affordable Care Act.

Carolyn is one of more than 73,000 young adults in New Jersey who gained insurance coverage as a result of the health care law.

Mary and her son, along with 3 million other people in New Jersey, including 1.2 million women and 877,000 children, are free from worrying about lifetime limits on coverage thanks to health care reform.

Republicans here in the House may be able to point to a business owner who has concerns over a provision of the law, or an adult who resists purchasing health insurance, but the truth is, the law has something to offer for every American. The Affordable Care Act requires that insurance companies spend the majority of your premium on health care--not on CEO bonuses or administrative costs. The law requires that Medicare coverage includes preventive services--such as flu shots and mammograms--without any cost sharing for our seniors. Furthermore, the law prohibits insurance companies from dropping someone when they get sick, or charging women more than men for the same health coverage. If you repeal the law, you take away these important provisions that make our health care more accessible, affordable, comprehensive, and reliable.

One does not bring a proposal to a vote 37 times out of a rational, considered desire to improve the lives of the American people. You do it out of an irrational, ideological vendetta. But the problem with irrational vendettas is that they are so focused on ideology that they ignore human consequences.

Stop ignoring Matt. Don't punish Carolyn. Don't overlook Mary and her son. Let's stop this foolish vendetta and do the real work we were sent here to do.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1406, the so- called ``Working Families Flexibility Act'' is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 in order to allow private sector employers to compensate their employees with compensatory time or comp time, instead of earned overtime pay. This proposal subverts the power and purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act by making private sector workplaces less fair and certainly less flexible.

Instead of ensuring fairness and flexibility for employees, H.R. 1406 gives employers the legal cover for forcing employees to work more and then, in turn, paying them less. This bill does nothing to assist working families; rather it is an assault on the wages of working families all across the country. What would improve the lives of working families is a proposal to increase the minimum wage, such as introduced by Ranking Member Miller and cosponsored by me and 134 members of this House. H.R. 1010 would increase the minimum wage in three tiered steps and then index future increases to inflation. Such a proposal would actually provide more flexibility by putting more money in the pockets of working families today and in the future. However, instead of considering a proposal which would directly benefit American workers, this Committee is considering a misleadingly named bill which does just the opposite.

Flexibility in the workplace is something that the government welcomes. However, H.R. 1406 is not the way to achieve that goal. Flexible workplaces do not force employees to choose between working more and earning less. Instead, flexible workplaces provide adequate leave options under the Family Medical Leave Act. Flexible workplaces provide a competitive, living wage for employees regardless of their gender. Flexible workplaces provide sufficient paid sick leave. H.R. 1406 does nothing to advance any of these proposals and most of all does nothing to foster a flexible work environment.

H.R. 1406 is nothing more than a message moment for the majority party. The bill weakens the worker protections under which we have lived comfortably for 75 years. This bill provides less flexibility, not more. Even if this deeply flawed bill passes this House, it will not be considered by the Senate nor will it become law. It is a diversion from the real issues that this Committee was tasked with tackling: creating jobs and fostering economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility Act'' would amend and would subvert the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 in order to allow private sector employers to compensate their employees instead of paying them overtime.

It gives employers the legal cover to force employees to work more and to pay them less. What would improve the lives of working families would be an increase in the minimum wage. What would provide flexible workplaces would be to give adequate leave options under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Flexible workplaces provide competitive living wages for employees. Flexible workplaces provide sufficient sick-pay leave.

H.R. 1406 does nothing to advance any of these proposals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to take note of a major milestone in human history. This past week, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed 400 parts per million.

I say a ``milestone in human history'' because this level of carbon dioxide has never been seen in human history. In fact, this level has not been achieved for millions of years.

I also say a ``milestone in human history'' because it is human activity--the way we produce and use energy--that is responsible for this high concentration; and it is of historic importance because, as scientists have made

clear, this great concentration of greenhouse gas is changing our very climate in ways that are dangerous and costly in dollars and lives. If we fail to change our ways, fail to change how we generate and use energy, then we will face worse and worse--blistering wildfires, withering droughts, flooding events, super hurricanes.

As the Earth goes barreling past 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, let's take action now, this year, this Congress, to address climate change. Let's show that this is a turning point, not just a marker of inaction and environmental degradation.