Floor Statements

E pluribus unum: one out of many.

We help each other. We always have. My district and many around were badly affected by one of the largest storms, by one of the most expensive storms, by one of the worst storms in history. There are thousands of people who are not going back to their homes. They deserve our help. I wish I could speak as articulately and in such a measured manner as our leader did and as others have, but I'm afraid my anger is going to get the better of me.

Some weeks ago, someone said to me, You know, you're not going to get help from the House of Representatives because these are blue States. They voted for a Democrat for President.

Now, I would like to think--and Mr. King and Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. Smith and Governor Christie would like to think--that this is not a partisan matter, but I have to wonder what could be going on here. Why would we not help each other as this House has always done?

Mr. Speaker, on December 20, 2012, I inadvertently cast a ``yes'' vote for this bill. I intended to vote ``no.''

There is no question that this legislation contains some important provisions that will benefit our troops and their families, including a small (1.7%) pay raise, special pay and bonuses (such as special retention pay for aviators, nurses, etc.), additional funding for family housing and support services, and other helpful measures. I was pleased that the final bill included a provision I authored that creates a permanent National Language Service Corps within the Defense Department.

The NLSC currently exists as a pilot program that has recruited more than 1,800 members. To date, Corps members have worked with the Department of the Navy, the National Security Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other federal agencies. For instance, the NLSC provided translation and interpretation support services to the U.S. Army Pacific for counterinsurgency training in Thailand. Far too few Americans can speak or understand foreign languages, and as a result, we are hampered in participating in global commerce and in defending our national security. The permanent establishment of the National Language Service Corps is a meaningful step toward helping our government meet its foreign language needs.

Unfortunately, this bill fails to address some key issues of concern to my constituents.

For example, the bill continues funding for an exo-atmospheric kill vehicle--a provocative and destabilizing system that will waste millions more on our failed national missile defense effort. The bill perpetuates a bloated nuclear weapons complex that does not enhance our security and in fact compromises our nonproliferation efforts. Worse, the bill continues to fund our combat operations in Afghanistan, instead of restricting the use of those funds to withdrawal-related operations only. There is simply no reason--military or political--for us to continue the war in Afghanistan. In the broadest sense, this bill continues the acquisition programs and policies that have been in place for decades. This bill does nothing to fundamentally reshape and downsize our armed forces. It continues Cold War weapons acquisition programs that have no place in a 21st century where the threats are vastly more diffuse and dispersed. For all these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I did not return to Washington in time on Monday December 17, 2012 and missed two votes.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 4606--To authorize the issuance of right-of-way permits for natural gas pipelines in Glacier National Park, and for other purposes (rollcall 627), ``yes'' on S. 3193--To make technical corrections to the legal description of certain land to be held in trust for the Barona Band of Mission Indians, and for other purposes (rollcall 628).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the forty years of service that the New Jersey Council for the Humanities has provided for my constituents in the twelfth congressional district and for residents throughout New Jersey. It is only appropriate that I take time in advance of October, National Arts and Humanities Month, to honor the important work that the Council does to engage New Jerseyans in discussions of history, literature, and culture that help residents reflect on our past and think critically about our future.

When Congress and President Johnson created the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) in 1965, they laid the groundwork for improving the study of the diverse heritage, traditions, and history of our nation. Indeed, the NEH has opened many doors for scholars and cultural institutions such as museums, libraries, and archives to further their research and share their findings. Since its founding, the NEH has helped Americans better understand America.

Yet, upon signing the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, President Johnson remarked wisely ``. . . these actions, and others soon to follow, cannot alone achieve our goals. To produce true and lasting results, our States and municipalities, our schools and our great private foundations, must join forces with us.'' In 1972, Congress heeded President Johnson's insight, and amended the Arts and Humanities Act to establish state Councils that would facilitate public programming unique to each state.

The New Jersey Council for the Humanities began its efforts in 1972 to provide an endless stream of programming that invites New Jerseyans to consider the past and think creatively about our future. By providing financial support for conferences, documentaries, publications, lectures, and forums, the Council offers the opportunity to learn more about our shared history and the traditions of others without cost to New Jersey residents. The New Jersey Council for the Humanities enables New Jerseyans to become consumers of history, informed commentators on our present, and architects of our future.

As a former educator, I am grateful for the New Jersey Council for the Humanities' dedication to enhancing history education in our schools. In an age of narrowing school curriculum across our country, arts, foreign language, history and other subjects have been pushed aside by the intense focus on tests and tested subjects. To help keep history alive in our classrooms, the Council offers an annual seminar known as the ``Teacher Institute'' for New Jersey primary and secondary school teachers to refresh and deepen their knowledge on key moments and themes of our past. The Teacher Institute has helped over 3,700 educators gain exposure to rich new content and benefit their students by bringing their knowledge back to the classroom. Thanks to the New Jersey Council for the Humanities, we are graduating more well-rounded and historically aware students.

In addition to enhancing the appreciation of humanities in the classroom, the Council promotes lifelong learning in public and private life. The New Jersey Council for the Humanities' extensive programming not only benefits school teachers and their students, but also writers, publishers, hospitals, libraries, civics groups, and colleges and universities in every corner of New Jersey.

I have heard from many of my constituents who inform me that the Council makes our community a better place to live. One resident in Monroe who works with senior citizens, for example, expressed to me that the state humanities councils advance ``the mental and intellectual well-being of our seniors.'' A local middle school teacher shared with me that despite having served on the faculty of a major research university, her knowledge to share with students ``was deepened'' by the Council's Teacher Institute. Others have conveyed the depth and strength of the Council's Horizon Speaker's Bureau, which provides educational lectures on topics ranging from the legendary Jersey Devil to Shakespeare's Hamlet, and to the U.S. Constitution for thousands of New Jerseyans every year. Simply put by a constituent from Lawrence, ``the state [C]ouncil is the neighborhood face of the humanities.''

My own experiences with the New Jersey Council for the Humanities have paralleled the positive testimonials constituents have shared with me. Each year, I eagerly await the Council's announcement of the Book, Teacher of the Year, and Lifetime Achievement in the Humanities Awards. By honoring the recipients of these distinctions, the New Jersey Council recognizes exemplary work in the public humanities that has made a significant and lasting difference in the lives of New Jerseyans. Previous award winners include Dr. Kwame Anthony Appiah in 2011 for his book The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen, Sylvia Nasar in 1999 for A Beautiful Mind, and Neil Baldwin in 1996 for Edison: Inventing the Century. I am proud to display in my Congressional office a collection of many of the past New Jersey Council for the Humanities Award winners, including works by twelfth congressional district constituents such as historian James McPherson, novelist Joyce Carol Oates, and the late poet and translator Robert Fagles.

The New Jersey Council has been dedicated for forty years to promoting public knowledge and love of New Jersey's rich history and culture. I look forward to the years to come when the New Jersey Council for the Humanities will continue to build upon its activities of the past forty years and continue to support and foster the exchange of ideas that creates a thoughtful and engaged society.

I thank the gentleman.

As we've heard the gentleman from Maryland say many times, ``Representative'' is not just a title. It's our job description. We need to hear from our constituents. And our constituents have told us over and over again this year what they want. They want middle class tax relief.

They want a farm bill. They want the postal service fixed so it can pay its bills. They want passage of the Violence Against Women Act. It's a long list of things that they feel we can do to help Americans.

We've had an opportunity to hear from people because the leadership sent us home a month and a half ago where we could hold town meetings while they allowed us to do nothing here. We heard from our constituents very clearly--not just from a small segment, not just from a few special interests, not just from a few percent for whom everything seems just fine, thank you. But we heard from all sorts of Americans who say, Help. Please. Get to work.

You've heard this is the least productive Congress in a generation, in a long generation; and that's by design. The majority sets the schedule. They scheduled very few days in session, very few committee hearings, very few markups.

So even the do-nothing Congress, as my friend from Missouri said, even the Congress that Harry Truman called the do-nothing Congress was much more productive than this one.

So why did the majority close up shop and head home until after the election? Well, the answer I think is pretty clear: they want to campaign. They've decided with their dismal record they need a little more time to campaign, a little time to explain why they cast 302 votes to limit protections for clean air and clean water and good land. They need a little more time to explain why the farm bill, to help the areas that have been hit by drought, to help the farmers that need crop insurance, hasn't been passed. To be sure, it's going to be hard to campaign on the record that they've compiled, and maybe they need a little extra time.

We don't need extra time to hear from our constituents about their needs and what they want us to do.

I stand with my friend Mr. Hoyer and all of us on this side of the aisle, to return to Washington any day, any night to do the work that the American people hired us to do--to be their representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Continuing Resolution (H.J. Res. 117) to fund the federal government through March 2013.

This bipartisan spending bill staves off the devastating costs recommended by my Republicans colleagues and instead continues the funding levels for the operations of federal agencies at last year's levels. I am pleased that this measure extends the services on which New Jersey families rely such as Small Business Administration, SBA, loan guarantees, Veterans Administration, VA, disability claims, and natural disaster relief. It preserves the necessary funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.

This compromise is by no means perfect, however. I am disappointed that this measure does not take any steps to invest in innovation, improve math and science education, make college more affordable, or help grow industries such as biotechnology and clean energy. I regret that this bill freezes the pay of hardworking federal employees who have already had years of pay freeze. Under this spending bill, no new programs will be funded. Unfortunately, this means that none of the important new programs--such as anti-distracted driving campaigns-- authorized in the recently passed MAP-21 transportation bill can begin.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the ranking member on the committee.

This Republican-led House has already cast 302--soon to be more-- anti-environmental votes in this Congress. In our last week in session before the election in November, our eighth day in session since the beginning of August, the majority now wants to use this precious time when we should be dealing with the Nation's economic problems. Instead, we are planning to consider legislation on the floor that will add to this total of anti-environmental votes.

No, there is no war on coal, not by the Obama administration or anyone else. Mr. Markey has explained the market forces at work. But there clearly has been a concerted effort. One out of every five votes we've taken in this Congress has been to reduce protections on our air, on our water, on our open spaces, et cetera.

This bill includes a coal ash title that endangers the health and safety of thousands of communities, provisions that would increase the levels of toxic mercury, lead, and cancer-causing toxins in the air and water. There are provisions in this bill that gut the Clean Air Act.

Why the House would waste precious time redebating these bills and voting on them once again is a mystery to me and I think must be a mystery to anyone who is observing the behavior of this House of Representatives. It only underscores the fact that the House Republican majority is more focused on passing message bills than addressing the real issues that face our Nation.

The remaining new title of this bill consists of a bill that was approved in the Resources Committee back in February. It purports to halt an ongoing effort by the Obama administration to rewrite a so- called ``midnight regulation'' that was adopted by the Bush administration on mountaintop removal mining. This Bush midnight mountaintop removal rule weakened a Reagan-era regulation by increasing the ability of the mining companies to dump mining waste in streams. Yes, believe it or not, they want to weaken those protections. It's another provision of this bill before us today.

The Obama administration has signaled that it intends to revise the Bush administration regulation to better protect local communities, to better protect public health, to better protect the water. However, this effort is only at the very early stages, and the Obama administration has not even issued a proposed rule. This is unnecessary, going in the wrong direction, and weakening environmental protections for this country.

Those are reasons enough to oppose this bill.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is drafted so broadly that it's likely to cause real damage. It would prevent the Interior Department from issuing nearly any new regulation under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The bill would prevent the Interior Department from undertaking any of a number of actions that it is considering to ensure that mining operations are safe for the workers and for the public and for our environment. I filed an amendment to narrow the scope of this title, but the majority would not make it in order.

Furthermore, H.R. 3409 would completely paralyze the Office of Surface Mining, which is responsible for protecting the citizens and workers, and we should not limit this agency when it comes to worker safety.

This bill would threaten public health by blocking the critical Clean Air Act regulations that limit dangerous air pollutants, as I said earlier, including mercury in the air that we breathe.

This is an irresponsible bill; it is unnecessary. We have important work to do to shore up this economy and to create jobs. Why in the world we are doing this is beyond anybody's reasonable explanation.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, today we have before us a bill that tells the American taxpayers to take a hike--not to take a walk in the woods, but to give up their place in any decisionmaking, to get lost, a hike from democracy and engagement in our government--because H.R. 5544 has a provision that would bar all Americans, including Native Americans, from being provided the information about the land exchange to take place and that would bar them from participating in the democratic process of being able to voice their views about the disposition of their property.

My amendment would restore public participation in the development of this proposed land exchange by striking language that would subvert proper environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. H.R. 5544 continues what we have seen elsewhere on this floor and on the Resources Committee that can only be called an attack on NEPA.

I wonder what my colleagues have in mind, why they have such a strong knee-jerk reaction to this bipartisan initiative that was signed into law by President Nixon, you may recall. Whatever any of my colleagues may think about the advisability of the underlying bill and the exchange that is proposed here, whatever that exchange may be, I would think my colleagues would at least want this to be done with transparency, full knowledge and public participation.

Public participation should always be of the utmost concern when planning public land projects, but it is particularly critical for the exchange that is proposed here. We aren't talking about a small land exchange. We are talking about tens of thousands of Federal acres that will be going out of Federal ownership and into State ownership for the purposes of mining and logging.

The bill doesn't tell us which parcels will be exchanged. We have no map. We really have no idea. We do know that there are 700 miles of snowmobile trails within the Superior National Forest and that there are thousands of lakes, 77 points of lake access, and 13 fishing piers. We know that hunting is allowed on all of these lands, including lands included within the boundary waters.

We also know that no fewer than 25 groups have written in opposition to

this exchange, expressing concerns about their ability to participate in what should be a public process. We also know that 2 million hunters and anglers, represented by the Minnesota Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Association, oppose this bill because, in their words:

Hunters have a vested interest because we now have access

to these properties--something that's never guaranteed when

management begins switching hands.

Finally, we know why the State of Minnesota wants these Federal lands. They want the lands to generate receipts for their school trust through mining and logging.

So we know some things, but there is much we don't know. There is much that should be brought out to the public. This entire exchange is justified on the State's belief that it is losing $650,000 a year because it can't mine and log lands within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

The public deserves to know more about this exchange and to have a voice in the future of these lands. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would ensure that the public can play a role in this exchange if the exchange is to go forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The chairman must think that it is so inconvenient to deal with a pesky public. Whether this is congressionally mandated or comes about in any way, something of this scale, that of involving the public's land, should involve the public in a very open way in understanding what it will be and in carrying it out. That's all this says. That's all this amendment would do. It would allow the NEPA process, the environmental process that applies to so many things around this country, to apply to this important transaction.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today our nation pauses to remember another September morning very much like this one, bright and sunny, which began as usual for most of us but ended with nearly 3000 of our citizens dead and our nation once again at war. As we do every year at this time, we remember with sorrow and sympathy the lives lost, the families shattered, and the sense of vulnerability many still feel. But we also remember the heroism of the first responders in New York City, Virginia and Pennsylvania, and we remember the heroism of the passengers of Flight 93, who saved countless others by overpowering the hijackers of their plane before it could cause more tragedy in Washington, DC.

We also remember the determination and unity of purpose we all felt in the days and weeks immediately after those attacks, a determination that has led to the effective dismantlement of Al Qaeda and the imprisonment or death of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Our determination to remember can be seen in the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, which is located on the former site of the Twin Towers and which we dedicated last year. Our determination to rebuild can be seen in the Freedom Tower, now known as One World Trade Center, that is steadily rising above the Manhattan skyline right next to the memorial and museum.

There are no words that I or anyone else could ever speak that will assuage the grief and sense of loss sustained by so many, including 700 in my district alone. What we can and must do is remember those lost and rededicate ourselves to rebuilding the country they loved, which in the end is the greatest tribute we could give them.

Each of us may never confront a vicious hijacker, but each of us can confront bigotry and division even in our own communities that destroy our commonality of purpose. Let us hope and pray that we can find within each of us the kind of courage as those Americans showed that day.

Madam Speaker, on this day, as on every day, we should be working toward a better future for America. Yet, by almost any measure, days in session, committee markups held, bills voted on or signed into law, this is one of the least productive Congresses in more than half a century, by design.

Everyone knew last year times would be tough, but despite that, the House Republicans who control the schedule scheduled a year of congressional inaction. Their ideology dictates that Congress can and should do nothing.

There is work to be done. Where is the jobs agenda?

With just days left in this congressional session, let's get to work.

I thank my friend from Missouri.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4631. I oppose this bill because it would make significant changes to Federal employees' ability to travel to conferences and meetings.

Although I appreciate the sponsors' efforts to ensure oversight on travel expenditures, I'm not sure they realize the impact that this legislation would have on science and technology, which is the engine of American innovation.

This bill institutes prohibitions and impediments that would hinder American scientists' ability to collaborate and communicate with scientists at other institutions and laboratories. Now, to be sure, they can probably get around these prohibitions and impediments, but we should not be putting these in place in the first matter.

As a scientist, I know firsthand how important scientific conferences and

meetings are. The informal conversations, as well as the formal presentations and poster sessions and everything else that goes into it between scientists from different institutions, lead to new collaborations that have the promise of new discoveries. These are not fancy junkets.

Now, people often ask students, well, what is science. What's so special about science? Why does it work? Well, it works because one of its fundamental tenets is communication.

To be sure, there are various ways to have communication, but scientific conferences are critically important. In a recent op-ed by the presidents of the American Chemical Society and the president of the American Physical Society, they discuss, for example, an anticancer drug that was the result of collaboration between a team of scientists from three laboratories that took place at conferences.

This bill would hinder that kind of collaboration. Just about any scientific society in this country can give you examples where large numbers of federally sponsored researchers go off to conferences. It happens in plasma physics. It happens in microbiology. It happens in AIDS policy and AIDS research.

In a time when the Federal Government should be making science a priority, passing a bill that would make scientists jump through hurdles and get around impediments would, in fact, weaken American scientists, weaken American science, and impede the ability of American scientists to innovate.

That is not wise. This is not the way to build our economy. We should be investing more in research and development, which means, of course, investing in scientists, but also investing in their ability to pursue science.

We should be spending more on international conferences. We should be spending more on national conferences. We should be spending more on national laboratories. We should be spending more on public and private research and development for the sake of jobs, for the sake of our economic vitality, for the sake of the quality of life of Americans. This is not the way to build our economy and to foster innovation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Will the gentleman yield?

Do you think that the Congress of the United States might do better if we don't meet in person, if we stay home and get on conference calls every once in a while and phone in?

I don't think so. I think the gains that are made in good legislation that come from conferences, as we gather here for votes, on the side between votes, is invaluable. The same can be said many times over for microbiology, for plasma physics, for--let's go through a long list.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 8, which should be called the Protecting America's Wealthiest 2 Percent Act of 2012.

Our main priority in the House of Representatives must be to support middle class families. It should not be to protect the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans by extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for them. As a body, we should work together to make our nation's tax system more equitable while continuing to support the middle class.

I opposed the so-called Bush tax cut plans in 2001 and 2003. In the aftermath of these cuts, federal revenue fell, real GDP grew at a rate less than 2 percent and the cumulative deficit grew to $6 trillion. Today, I rise in support of the Democratic Substitute to H.R. 8 which extends all income tax cuts for the 98 percent of Americans and asks the richest households to contribute to deficit reduction by reverting back to the 1990s rates--a decade in which the workforce grew by 22 million jobs and saw the largest budget surplus in recent history.

My colleagues across the aisle have shown that their priority is to protect only privileged Americans by giving away tax breaks to the wealthiest in this country and continuing to ignore the needs of middle class families. Republicans are holding tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses hostage to deficit-busting tax breaks for the top 2 percent, while rewarding Big Oil, special interests, and corporations that outsource American jobs.

H.R. 8 would raise taxes on 25 million American families by an average $1,000 by ending vital expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit and end the American Opportunity Tax Credit entirely. These 25 million families are earning the least and who rely on these credits to put more wages in their pockets, increase access to child care services, and make college more affordable. It would add to the deficit by extending tax breaks for the highest- earning households, giving millionaires a tax break savings of $160,000 annually. Republicans are holding the middle class hostage by demanding tax cut extensions for the richest 2 percent and by adding $50 billion to the deficit. What is even more egregious is that H.R. 8 would disproportionately affect those military families who sacrifice every day to protect our freedoms. The American middle class, including our military families, would see a tax increase on January 1, 2013 if we fail to come to an agreement on taxes for the top 2 percent.

I want to protect hard working Americans, including our military families. I support making sure everyone, especially the wealthiest Americans and large corporations, pays their fair share. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Democratic Substitute to H.R. 8, which is identical to The Middle Class Tax Cut Act which passed the Senate last week. The Middle Class Tax Cut Act would preserve the current tax rates for 98 percent of Americans and only increase taxes on the richest 2

percent who earn the most and have seen the largest tax breaks over the last ten years. We can act now. If we pass The Middle Class Tax Cut Act today we can keep taxes low for the 98 percent of Americans who rely on the tax breaks and credits extended in this bill. Then we can separately debate the issue of extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Instead, the majority will adjourn today until September having done nothing to protect the middle class or to make sure everyone pays their fair share.

Under the Republicans' plan, 30.5 percent of tax cuts going to my home state, New Jersey, would go to the richest 1 percent, and 45.8 percent would go to the richest 5 percent. That is 76.3 percent of tax cuts going to the top 6 percent of state residents, leaving 23.7 percent of cuts for the remaining 94 percent of New Jerseyans.

I strongly support The Middle Class Tax Cut Act and the Democratic Substitute to H.R. 8. We can no longer afford to continue giving the biggest breaks to those who need them the least. It's time to put money back into the pockets of hard working Americans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3397, sponsored by our Chairman Hastings, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture

to adjust the fees for private cabins on national forest lands.

We remain concerned about the impact this legislation may have on cabin owners of modest means, of which there are many. It appears that in order to reduce the fees for owners in the highest bracket, fees on the middle- and lower-value cabins would have to increase.

Many members of the committee do not object to the passage of this legislation at this time, although I wanted to bring up some personal concerns about the inequity of the new fee system. I'd like to work with the chairman and the cabin owners and the other body to achieve an equitable solution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2706, the Billfish Conservation Act, seeks to ban imports of foreign-caught marlin, sailfish, and spearfish into the United States. Now, these fish, as we know from prized photographs of our friends and many of our past experiences, are highly valued as recreational game-fish and serve as the top predators in ocean ecosystems--the so-called lions and tigers of the sea.

While this bill is a small step forward and has the support of recreational fishing and commercial interests, we can and should do much more for the conservation of billfish. Specifically, developing and using more selective commercial fishing gear, cracking down on illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, and passing legislation, such as the bill recently introduced by our colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), to combat seafood fraud would provide even more protections for these iconic species. However, I and most of my colleagues, I believe, support passage of H.R. 2706; and we hope that it is a precursor to further action on this important issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask the chairman if he has additional speakers?

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6007, the North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier Act, provides a very specific and necessary--we believe-- exemption to the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981.

The Lacey Act is vital to our Nation's interests because it prevents the spread of undesirable, injurious species such as zebra mussels. In fact, zebra mussels may be a textbook example, a poster child for injurious introduced species.

These mussels are the bane of many a power plant or municipal water operator. Millions are spent each year just to keep intake and outflow pipes clear of these creatures. They harm our fisheries by crowding out native species and taking all their food, and they're driving many native mussels to extinction.

H.R. 6007 would allow the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority to transport water that contains zebra mussels from the Oklahoma side of Lake Texoma to Texas. However, all the water would be kept in closed conveyance systems, we are assured; and we are further assured that all water would be fully treated, with all zebra mussels being fully removed before being released into any water body. The biologists, the limnologists, the hydrologists, the water engineers assure us of these things.

I do want to emphasize that zebra mussels are pernicious and insidious. I am loathe, and I think many of my colleagues are loathe, to weaken or seek exemption from the Lacey Act, which controls invasive species. However, Texas needs access to this water, and the aforementioned entities have a comprehensive plan for ensuring, we are told, that these water transfers will not cause zebra mussels to spread.

So for these reasons, and with this understanding, I rise in support of H.R. 6007. I do strongly urge that this bill, which is put forward as a remedy for a very difficult and unique situation, should not be used to set any precedent for granting exemptions to the Lacey Act or in any way weakening our protections against invasive species.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.