Floor Statements

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, which reiterates language that is in the underlying bill, and we have no objection to it on the minority side. I applaud the gentleman for bringing it forward.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee again for bringing forward this bipartisan legislation, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The Federal Helium Reserve is in rapid decline. It is being exhausted. At the current drawdown rate, in 5 or 6 or 7 years the helium in the reserve will be largely depleted.

The amendment by Mr. Dent seeks to run out the clock on this legislation to allow the existing regime to stand and prevent the reforms that H.R. 527 would bring forward. H.R. 527 does not alter or end the contracts that the refiners have with the Bureau of Land Management, but if we do nothing and allow the gentleman's amendment to go forward, under existing law and terms of those contracts, the entire helium program would come to an end in October of 2013--this year.

The amendment would delay the implementation of the reforms in the bill until 2018 at which time it is likely there would be little helium left to distribute to anyone, to the hospitals and the doctors who need it, to the electronics manufacturers who need it, to the scientists and researchers who need it. This amendment would gut the bipartisan reforms of the bill, and it should be defeated.

Although the gentleman claims he wants to prevent disruption in the supply, by preventing this legislation, he would in fact do just that. He would create disruptions in the supply.

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

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

My amendment is quite simple. It would expand the study section of the act to provide an assessment of how the eventual closure of the Federal Helium Reserve would influence the availability of this critical resource in the future.

Let me take just a moment to say a little bit about why this is important. Helium is the second-lightest gas in existence. It remains liquid down to absolute zero. It is chemically very inert. It is hardly soluble in water or other fluids. It can be made into a quantum superfluid that flows without any viscous resistance at all. These are unique properties that make helium invaluable, necessary, irreplaceable for uses in magnetic resonance imaging in doctors' offices and hospitals, for fabricating electronic devices, for all sorts of research, whether it be in quantum computing or superfluids in any number of other areas.

Why is this a policy issue worthy of the consideration of the U.S. Congress? Well, because this invaluable, irreplaceable element is very rare on Earth. It is in fact the second most common element in the universe, but it has long since risen up through the atmosphere of the Earth and vanished into space. And small amounts of helium are created moment by moment deep in the Earth through radioactive decay caught in natural gas reserves, along with methane and the other things that we call natural gas. But it is rare, and it is difficult to separate, and yet we need it.

Farsighted legislators three-quarters of a century ago began stockpiling helium. They thought it would be used for dirigibles and blimps. They weren't sure what else it would be used for, but they understood helium had some very special properties.

It was a good investment for taxpayers. It was a very good investment for taxpayers that this stockpile was created.

Now the stockpile is running low because of decisions by Congress in past years. It's important that, as we make the decisions and the changes that we make with this legislation, we not fail to recognize possible future uses, possible future demands, and possible failure of the market to provide an adequate supply of helium to meet those demands.

I know there is an ideology that's prevalent around here for any commodity, for any human need, that the market will provide. In fact, it doesn't always. And in this case, in the helium over the decades, it would not have, had it not been for the Federal Reserve. So it is important that we stop and take a look at the implications for the future.

And so my amendment would simply expand the study section that already exists in this legislation to make sure that we look at possible future uses, likely future supplies, and making sure that we are prepared to have an adequate supply of this valuable resource into the future. It should be a noncontroversial amendment. I hope it will be unopposed, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend from Texas, and I think the gentleman's amendment is a good one. It will clarify that producers of helium may connect to the Federal helium reserve to store helium. And by seeking to provide incentives for additional production and storage, I think his amendment will provide a public service.

I think, as the gentleman has said, we should examine ways that we can use the reserve to maximize the American supply of helium in the decades ahead. So I support him in this, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, a superb Member of Congress, Mr. McGovern. I join him in saying that this legislation represents an unwarranted delay on what should be a noncontroversial piece of legislation.

H.R. 527 is a bill carefully written by Chairman Hastings, in consultation with me and with Ranking Member Markey, with Representative Flores,

and with many individuals and organizations that depend on a reliable, fairly priced supply of helium. Now, most Americans give no thought to our supply of helium; but a reliable supply of helium is essential for health care imaging, for electronics manufacturing, and for many, many other activities important to Americans today and in the future.

In line with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, which my friend from Utah mentioned, the bill succeeds in averting a global helium crisis that would result from the closure of the Federal Helium Reserve at the end of this fiscal year. The bill also fixes the mechanism for helium pricing so that we can now provide a fair market price to users and a positive return to taxpayers. So I support the bipartisan agreement represented here in H.R. 527.

Yet by bringing this legislation to the floor under a rule, which is really not necessary, with amendments and by scheduling a debate today, which will end, maybe, an hour or two from now--and amendments tomorrow, which will take an hour or so, stretched over 2 days--the leadership has created a deliberate, irresponsible delay. We could have dispensed with this in 10 minutes. My colleague said 60 minutes--okay. Let's be generous--60 minutes--but we could have dispensed with this.

Instead, we spend 2 days on this, and in the 2 days we spend on this, we are not considering legislation to create jobs, to provide education and training for workers, to consider a conference on the budget resolutions of the House and the Senate, or legislation to undo the sequester imposed by the Republican majority and now affecting airport delays and Head Start limitations and lost food inspections and delayed medical research and so many other things. The bill could have been considered and adopted under a suspension of the rules, but instead we are here debating a rule.

It's an important issue. We've proposed a workable solution. There is no controversy that I know of on this, so let's pass H.R. 527 without delay and get on to all of these other issues. It's not as if there aren't important problems facing this country.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 527, and I begin by commending and thanking Chairman Hastings for his outstanding bipartisan leadership on this legislation and on other things before the committee. This bill was drafted in close cooperation with the Democratic minority, and I thank the chairman of the committee. He worked with Ranking Member Markey and me and with Representative Flores; and we've put together, I think, a solid piece of legislation. The legislation is an example of how we can work together. I wish it were moving faster on the floor today and tomorrow, but it is a cooperative undertaking.

As the chairman said, helium is critical for magnetic resonance imaging, MRI machines; for NASA rocket operation; for high-tech manufacturing; and for all sorts of scientific research. For many of these applications, there is no replacement for helium with its truly unique properties. Farsighted legislators established a Federal stockpile many decades ago, which was good; and as important uses of helium were recognized over the decades, we can be thankful that the stockpile existed.

The frenzy of privatization under the Gingrich era in Congress has now made this legislation necessary. Our Nation's Federal Helium Reserve supplies nearly half of the helium used in the United States; and if Congress fails to pass this legislation, by the end of the current fiscal year, the Interior Department's authority to continue operating the Reserve will expire. If this is allowed to happen, nearly half of America's helium supply would be cut off overnight, creating truly a crisis in health care, in research, in electronic manufacturing, and in many other areas. That's the immediate problem that this legislation would solve; but there is a second, potentially more severe, problem to be addressed.

At the current withdrawal rates, we have only 5 to 7 years of helium available from the Reserve. Reviews by the National Academy of Sciences, by the Government Accountability Office, and by the Interior Department Inspector General's Office have all concluded that we are not selling the Nation's helium at market prices. Since Federal helium comprises such an enormous percentage of the global supply, with the price set and controlled by the Interior Department as required under the guidelines established some years back, the global price of helium is artificially low.

The current system isn't just a bad deal for taxpayers; it has also distorted the global helium market. If we continue to avoid a solution, as some have advocated, we could find ourselves facing even more severe helium shortages and price spikes when the Federal Reserve is largely exhausted a few years from now and when there may be insufficient alternative supplies to turn to.

That's why we must reform our Nation's helium policy, put the market- based signals in place that will help provide an incentive to bring new supplies on line. The failure to enact reforms of the helium program, such as those contained in this legislation, could mean an increased reliance on insecure and irregular helium supplies from Russia, Algeria, Qatar, and other foreign sources. It could mean higher prices for American industry and for researchers.

There have already been interruptions in supply. National labs have testified before our committee that helium deliveries necessary for their research have already been subject to interruptions.

The bipartisan legislation before us today would address both of these impending crises. H.R. 527 would extend the life of the Federal Helium Reserve past the end of this year and ensure a fair return to taxpayers on this federally-owned resource. It would generate more than $300 million for American taxpayers as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. The bill will increase competition, transparency, and participation in helium markets, which will help shift commercial helium reliance from the Reserve to private sources.

The principles of this bill are consistent with the recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences in 2010 to improve the helium program by expanding participation and openness in helium markets.

It will protect Federal users, such as NASA and the National Labs, as well as the scientific community by ensuring that they have priority access to this federally-owned resource in the short term and exclusive access in the longer term.

This bill was created with input from the Department of the Interior, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and many scientific researchers. It has the support of the American Physical Society and many other groups and many helium users, such as corporations like General Electric, Siemens, Philips, Intel, Applied Materials, Dow Chemical, IBM, Texas Instruments, and many others. It's a product of close work between the majority and the minority members of the committee.

Again, I thank the majority for providing that collaboration with us. It's a good bill. It provides a workable solution to a real problem. I urge its adoption.

I wish we could deal with this bill promptly and all the amendments promptly. We could be done in less than an hour, and then we could turn our attention to other concerns that Americans have, such as jobs and education, training for workers, a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate budget resolutions, removing the thoughtless sequester that the majority imposed on the country affecting air traffic control and food inspections and Head Start slots and medical research and many other things. But instead, we will postpone the consideration of the amendments until tomorrow, I'm sorry to say, and eat up valuable time that we could spend dealing with America's pressing problems. Nevertheless, I look forward to the passage of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

If the gentleman needs more time, I gladly yield an additional 30 seconds.

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

We have at least one more speaker, and my closing.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) who counts among his constituents many who work in technical industries and laboratories who depend on helium and understand that although there are a lot of easy jokes about helium, this is a serious matter. It is a serious matter that we should move along with promptly.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Colorado, the chair of the Energy and Mineral Subcommittee. He reiterates the important uses of helium, and I would add that any American patient or doctor who uses MRIs, which depend on helium, or any American who uses modern electronics whose manufacture depends on helium, or anyone who depends on so many other things for which helium is essential, should be grateful that decades ago farsighted legislators created the stockpile to preserve helium.

We now have before us the need to make sure that helium isn't sold at fire-sale prices. We need to make sure that we have a reliable supply for these important uses. We need to make sure that the Interior Department is not forced out of the business prematurely. The Interior Department has expressed support for the approach taken by this legislation.

Again, I commend and thank the chairman for his bipartisan leadership to bring this sensible legislation to the floor. I hope that the other body will act quickly and follow our lead and pass this legislation so we do not experience supply disruptions and price spikes later this year. I urge passage of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Armenian Caucus, I am pleased to continue to lend my support to the Armenian-American community and the people of Armenia in any way that I can. I support strongly the work that all the members of the Armenian American community do to foster strong ties between America and Armenia.

This month we mark a somber and important anniversary.

Ninety-eight years ago, the Ottoman empire committed one of the largest crimes against humanity in world history. The systematic annihilation of over a million Armenian men, women and children is a crime that cannot be forgotten. We will not allow it to be forgotten.

I know that many will say that the Armenian deaths occurred in the midst of war and social disruption and so we cannot call it genocidal killing, or that we cannot even say accurately how many people died and how they died. Such arguments avoid the evidence. The evidence shows that more than a million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman empire.

Further, some will complain that these statements unfairly besmirch the dignity and reputation of today's Turks. I would say that recognizing genocide from nearly a century ago need not sully the reputation of modern-day Turks any more than accounts of disreputable, brutal or atrocious behavior of early settlers in the Americas, or of Germans in the 1930s and 1940s, or South Africa under apartheid, or other historical regimes reflect badly on those nations today, unless those nations refuse to acknowledge and learn from past evils and mistakes.

I'm also pleased that so many of my colleagues have joined me in supporting continued U.S. government aid and support for Armenia and the people of Nagorno Karabakh. These remain challenging times for the people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, and I hope our colleagues on the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate honor our request for that aid to continue.

On this anniversary of the genocide against the Armenian people, let us recommit ourselves to ensuring that the truth about this heinous event is acknowledged by every country in the world.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill. I believe my former colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who have brought this bill to the floor today have only the very best of intentions. They seek to prevent cyber attacks against our nation. So do I. Unfortunately, their proposed solution is a radical over-reach that would not stop such attacks but would open up the private lives and information of Americans for the government and business to see, at will.

This bill contains the key phrase ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . .''. What does that mean? It means that notwithstanding even the limited privacy protections in the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act, this bill would give businesses the ability to share the public's private data among themselves and the government by invoking

the phrase ``cyber threat''. It means that notwithstanding the privacy protections in HIPAA, businesses can share personal medical information with each other and the government if there is a ``cyber threat''. And the definition of cyber threat is so nebulous, so sweeping that it can be invoked for almost anything that simply look unusual or is not immediately explainable.

Chillingly, the bill in its current form would allow companies to share sensitive and personal information directly with the NSA and other military agencies, even if it is purely domestic, American information that is no way associated with foreign threats or national security events. CISPA would allow companies to share personally identifiable information without making even reasonable efforts to protect it. Finally, CISPA grants broad immunity for any ``decisions made'' based on cyber information, regardless of whether the company was acting recklessly or causes unintended collateral damage. This week the President indicated that he would veto this bill were it presented to him in its current form, as well he should. The better outcome would be for this bill to never reach his desk.

Many competent security experts have shared their views with Congress that we can better protect our nation from cyber attacks without compromising the privacy and interests of our citizens. I regret that their counsel has been ignored, which is why I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this badly flawed bill.

Mr. Speaker, for decades, Americans have been calling on Congress to support the designation of a Red Rock Wilderness Area on the Colorado Plateau in Utah.

In 1984, the people of Utah began to conduct a volunteer driven wilderness inventory of America's Red Rock Country.

Soon thereafter--in 1989--former Utah Rep. Wayne Owens introduced America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.

Then in 1996, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) began their own survey of the Red Rock Wilderness Area.

During this time President Bill Clinton, using the Antiquities Act, proclaimed Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

The next year, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois first introduced a Red Rocks bill in the Senate.

In recent Congress Rep. Maurice Hinchey introduced a Red Rock bill in the House.

Today, Senator Durbin and I are introducing companion bills to protect 9.5 million acres of federal land as wilderness in Utah's Red Rock Country.

America's Red Rock Wilderness Act will protect from development one of this country's most spectacular landscapes.

Deep red canyons, windswept mesas and naturally sculpted sandstone formations will define the Red Rock Wilderness Area.

Places like Labyrinth and Desolation Canyons; Cedar Mesa and the San Rafael Swell; and of course, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

All of the lands proposed for wilderness in our bill are already federal lands managed by the BLM.

All of these lands would be preserved for all time and for all Americans--existing as they are--sculpted and defined by the forces of nature and the hand of God . . .

Wilderness designations have a strong bipartisan history in Utah.

In fact, in 2006, my friend from Utah and current Chairman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Land and Environmental Regulation sponsored legislation that created the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area.

America's Red Rock Wilderness Act will preserve some of the last unbroken tracts of lands in Utah, all while continuing to uphold the land's multiple use mandate under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act.

A wilderness designation will also allow for the protection of natural environments and watersheds, ecological diversity, native habitat, and a range of recreational opportunities such as hiking, backpacking, hunting and fishing.

Right now off-road vehicle use and encroaching oil and gas development pose major threats to an area that desperately deserves wilderness protection.

A gallon of gas will in the tank of an ORV will only take you so far, but a vote to designate America's Red Rock Wilderness Areas would perpetuate for all time.

I thank my colleagues in the House who have joined me in cosponsoring this legislation today, and I thank Senator Durbin and his colleagues for their support in the Senate.

I urge immediate consideration of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act in the House.

Mr. Speaker, for centuries, we have lauded the achievements of great entrepreneurs, whether the automobile industry of Henry Ford or the iPhone of Steve Jobs. Business was the province of people with money. As the old cynical joke goes, banks would loan money only to people who don't need it.

So throughout the world, and especially in the post-colonial developing world, the chance of escaping poverty and living a dignified life seemed an impossible dream for millions and millions. One person has helped transform the dream into a possibility--in fact, a reality-- of family sufficiency for people all over the planet.

When the Nobel Committee awarded Dr. Muhammad Yunus and the financial institution he created, the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, the Nobel Peace Prize a few years back, the Committee made the award for ``their efforts to create economic and social development from below.'' I'll phrase it differently. Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank received the award for treating people with dignity and giving millions around the world hope.

Today, in the rotunda here at the U.S. Capitol, we honor Dr. Yunus with the Congressional Gold Medal. Muhammad Yunus has shown us being a visionary does not mean promoting the impractical or the impossible. Unlike some economic theories advanced over centuries, Dr. Yunus' theories have been proven to work. To date, the Grameen Foundation and the bank and its partners have helped 9.4 million of the world's poorest people receive microloans. The bank has given loans of a few dollars to millions to those who, by traditional standards, are not worthy of credit.

His idea of a socially conscious business focused on serving the poor flew in the face of conventional economic theory and certainly in the face of existing banking practice. But it worked. Recipients paid back the loans and got ahead financially.

The Grameen Foundation's financial outreach to people living below the poverty level has been life-altering for women in Nigeria and Haiti and Cambodia and Peru. Dr. Yunus has inspired similar local efforts in dozens of nations, including our own. His life and work are a testament to the difference a single person can make here on Earth.

Dr. Yunus' legacy will be measured not simply by the many awards he has won over his career, such as we honor him with today, but by the current and future generations of people who will travel the road from poverty to success and sufficiency because of Dr. Yunus' vision and commitment. He believes that we have the power to end poverty--not just to alleviate it, but end it--and we should take him seriously. Muhammad Yunus is showing us how.

I ask my colleagues to join me in giving Dr. Yunus congratulations on receiving the Congressional Gold Medal today, and join me in giving thanks to him for making many, many lives around the world better.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1287.

I thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey.

Let's understand, the issue here is not about recess appointments or the Board quorum at a Federal agency or the Constitution. My Republican friends never raised this issue in hundreds of previous occurrences.

Instead, what's happening now, the majority is using this misguided bill as a platform to continue a coordinated attack on the National Labor Relations Board and on American workers.

H.R. 1120 is simply an attempt to effectively shut down the Board and deny all private sector employees their rights.

The NLRB is an independent agency which serves as the only avenue for private sector employees to bargain collectively, to file unfair labor complaints, to conduct union elections if desired.

The National Labor Relations Act stabilizes workplaces and ensures industrial peace. We must not continue these warrantless attacks on the only established avenue which brings employees to the bargaining table with their employers.

What H.R. 1120 would do is roll back the clock three-quarters of a century, to the days of brutality and humiliation, the days before the institution of the Wagner Act, the days in which workers and their families suffered indignities, strife, even bloodshed.

Having laws for orderly labor and management processes helps businesses. It helps industry. It helps citizens of all economic levels. It helps our economy.

I regret that the majority is wasting time that could be used to address the real problems facing Americans. At every town hall citizens ask me: What about jobs? What about economic growth?

But instead of helping workers raise their wages, improve workplace safety, ensure fair retirement, House Republicans continue their attack on the National Labor Relations Board and ignore the economic crisis facing American workers, and making the American Dream that much harder for Americans to achieve.

This is not about abstract worker rights. This is about a productive economy where workers and their employers can work together.

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

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

H.R. 254, introduced by my friend Mr. Chaffetz of Utah, would allow for the production of hydropower at existing facilities by deferring the debt associated with hydropower development on the Diamond Fork System, as you have heard.

This would facilitate the development of 50 megawatts of clean hydroelectric power while generating revenue for the government for the use of its water facilities. This is what we should want to see.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentleman from Virginia have further speakers?

With that, I will repeat my advice to my colleagues that we support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I rise in support of the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act that Mr. Wittman and I have brought to the committee and now to the floor.

From Lexington, where the shot still reverberates, to Gettysburg, the site of the battle described so brilliantly and concisely by Lincoln, to the stories of the American Revolution and the Civil War, it is at the battlefields that we bring to life the ideals of liberty and democracy fostered by our Nation's Founders.

History is best experienced by those who can touch it, feel it, live it; and the battlefields of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War provide a unique opportunity for Americans to experience where and how the epic struggle for our Nation's independence and identity took place. Unfortunately, urbanization, suburban sprawl, and unplanned commercial and residential development are constantly encroaching on many of the significant battlefields of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. This encroachment poses a severe and growing risk to the preservation of these historically significant sites.

Congress recognized this danger to our shared history and in the late 1990s created the American Battlefield Protection Program, a competitive grant program that matches Federal dollars with private money to preserve Civil War sites. Since Congress first appropriated funding for this program, it has helped to save more than 17,000 acres of hallowed ground in 14 States, again encouraging private funds for acquiring land from willing sellers.

The bill before us today, H.R. 1033, would build on the success of the American Battlefield Protection Program in preserving Civil War battlefield sites and would reauthorize this program and extend the protection and preservation to battlefields from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

H.R. 1033 would allow officials at the American Battlefield Protection Program to collaborate with State and local governments and nonprofit organizations to preserve and protect the most endangered historical sites and provide up to 50 percent of the cost of purchasing the battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development, again from willing sellers encouraging the use of private funds.

Previously, this legislation has been approved three times by this House with overwhelming bipartisan support, mostly unanimous.

In a markup in the House Natural Resources Committee last month, the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act again passed unanimously.

As the Civil War Trust said in their letter supporting this legislation:

The battlefields of the American Revolutionary War, the War

of 1812, and the Civil War provide a unique opportunity for

Americans to experience the epic battles that helped define

our Nation. Preserving these American historic treasures is

essential to remember the sacrifices that our ancestors made

to secure our freedom and independence and preserve our

Republic.

With the ongoing bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812 and the ongoing sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War, this is an opportune time to recommit ourselves to the protection of our Nation's hallowed grounds. Historical sites, once lost, are gone forever. We should act now to preserve these valuable sites.

The National Park Service has done an inventory of sites around the country, and they point to many that need this protection now.

I thank my colleague from Virginia for his enthusiastic support. I point out that there is strong bipartisan support for this legislation as cosponsors and other supporters. And I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I thank my good friend from Virginia, and would reiterate what he has said.

In fact, the original legislation, which we are reauthorizing and extending through this bill, grew out of Virginia. It was because of the critical battlefields in Virginia that were at risk of being lost that this battlefield protection legislation was developed, but it will be beneficial across many States.

If you look where the War of 1812 was fought--in the Deep South and around the Great Lakes--and where the Revolutionary War was fought, which was up and down the Thirteen Colonies, this is something that is of great national importance; and because the authorization is about to expire, it is needed; and because so many of these battlefields are at great risk of being overrun by sprawl and development, it is at the greatest need now.

I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to add to his economic numbers the fiscal fact that this does not appropriate any funds. We are just reauthorizing existing legislation and extending it.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to remind this House of the threat that climate change poses to our communities and to emphasize the need for increased Federal investment in new and innovative technologies to protect and improve the world we live in.

This past October, Hurricane Sandy hit the mid-Atlantic, including my home State of New Jersey. Hurricane Sandy was one of the most costly storms in history. Society will bear the costs of climate change. Society is bearing the costs of climate change. The debt was wracked up as we recklessly burned fossil fuels over a century, filling the atmosphere with excess CO2. Now the debts are coming due as wildfires, droughts, superstorms, and floods--a costly debt in lives and dollars.

We would be wise to invest in more resilient infrastructure and sustainable, non-fossil energy sources, in good science related to climate change. We as a country should rise to the challenge. The United States is not a poor, impoverished Nation. We are just acting like one. We should be investing as if we believe there is a future for us.

Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 192nd anniversary of Greece declaring its independence from the Ottoman Empire. After eight years, Greece was free again for the first time in nearly five centuries. As a former colonial people, we Americans instinctively have a sense of affinity for other peoples seeking to throw off the shackles of foreign rule. In the case of Greece, that feeling is particularly powerful because our very conceptions of democracy, self-government and citizen participation in the life of the nation come directly from ancient Greece.

Today, the people of Greece are struggling with new and serious challenges, especially deep-seated economic problems that have not only rocked the economic foundations of the nation but have put Greek democracy itself at risk. The rise of the ``Golden Dawn'' movement is a reminder that anti-democratic forces in a society can emerge with frightening speed. I am encouraged that the overwhelming majority of Greeks have rejected the fascist and racist ideology of ``Golden Dawn'', and America should continue to do all it can to help our Greek ally achieve a full and enduring economic recovery. The bonds of friendship between America and Greece are strong in no small part because of our common commitment to a core value of Western civilization: democracy. On this 192nd anniversary of the rebirth of Greek democracy, I wish

the people of Greece and all Greek-Americans a happy independence day.

Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member, my friend from California, and I rise in opposition to the SKILLS Act.

Workforce investment has an important role in Congress, and it could and should be done in a bipartisan way. The government has a role to play in setting standards to preserve fairness and to expand access. The so-called SKILLS Act seeks to combine and reduce vital programs. It takes 35 programs and identifies them for elimination, and it says the Federal Government will leave a bushel basket full of money on the steps of each State capitol. This is an abdication of our responsibility to think hard, to work hard, to set standards.

What some on the other side might call ``red tape'' or ``overregulation'' I would call ``standards'' in order to see that the workforce investment programs really address the needs of individuals with disabilities or the needs of identifiable groups, such as veterans and youth, who deserve our help, and that it will provide good services for those who need the help most, not the easiest cases: say, single parents, whose daily struggles with food and housing and transportation and child care make job training difficult.

We had good ideas, the Democrats, ideas that were similar to what went into the original Workforce Investment Act--ways to improve these programs and make them serve all of these Americans. H.R. 803, for example, does not support library resource centers. It ignores individuals with disabilities and incumbent workers. The bill doesn't allow libraries to partner fully in the workforce investment programs.

Last year, I introduced an amendment to authorize libraries to engage in statewide employment and training activities. No such this year. Many low-wage workers, often single mothers, struggling, need special help. My home State of New Jersey had online learning for low-income workers. By creating grants for online learning, such as laptops at home, we could provide many of these workers who have to stay at home and raise families the opportunity to improve their skills and enter the new economy. Yes, that should be in this program for the Nation.

The Rehabilitation Act is intended to aid individuals with disabilities. The amendments to the Rehabilitation Act in this bill before us today would reduce significantly the services for individuals with disabilities by eliminating programs and eliminating those dedicated funding streams, and saying instead: Well, you can do it if you want to.

Incumbent workers do not get the help they need here. This act does nothing to improve those people in low-level positions who have the opportunity, with help, to move upward.

We need to work together to provide our Nation's job seekers the resources and training they need. And we here in the Federal Government have a responsibility to set the standards to see that people of all sorts who need the help have the access.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado, and I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill of the so-called SKILLS Act.

Fifteen years ago, before I was in Congress, I watched with great interest as Congress, House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, worked on worker training and produced the Workforce Investment Act. I was impressed. This was the kind of thing that Congress should be doing. It was the kind of thing that made me look forward to the prospect of maybe going to Congress some day.

I remember David Broder, then the dean of Washington journalists, wrote a column saying this is exactly the kind of thing that Congress should be doing--and they were doing it in a bipartisan way.

And here we are today, 15 years later, with an ideological, partisan dead end.

Now, let me make it clear: workforce investment is what Congress needs to do. The government plays an important role in training and fostering a strong and capable workforce.

The so-called SKILLS Act does not invest in the workforce. Rather, it seeks to combine and reduce vital programs that workers need.

As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I, along with others, sought to help to develop and update an efficient, fair program that would help eager workers get the right training and get the right jobs. We had some good ideas to contribute. Some of them had been tested in my home State of New Jersey.

We had some strong evidence that some of the programs that Representative Foxx's version had canceled, or sought to cancel, should be improved and retained. We had good legislative language for the majority party to consider, and we were rebuffed. Our efforts were in vain.

American workers are now caught in the middle of this partisan, ideological effort. Individuals with disabilities, the disadvantaged, high-risk youth, veterans cannot afford to be abandoned by the majority party's proposal.

It was interesting that the author of this bill said, well, only 6.8 percent of the SNAP participants use the workforce training. Oh, so 3 million people we can forget about. Is that the implication of that?

No, I think the implication should be we should expand it to even more. We need to work together to provide our Nation's job seekers with the resources and the training they need to obtain and maintain quality employment. The underlying partisan ``consolidate it and then cut it bill'' will keep people out of work, not put them back to work.

I urge the defeat of the rule so that we can have something more bipartisan, and I urge defeat of the bill.