Floor Statements

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

I would like to thank my colleagues from the Natural Resources Committee for working with me to bring this bill to the floor today, our bipartisan bill, which is the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act. I was pleased to work with Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop and Ranking Members Markey and Grijalva to move this bill through our committee, and I would like to thank the majority and minority staffs for their hard work.

The bill before us today reauthorizes the American Battlefield Protection Program, which is a competitive grant program that matches Federal dollars with private money to preserve historic war sites. H.R. 2489 builds on the success of the Civil War Battlefield Protection Program, which has preserved Civil War battlefield sites. The legislation also expands the grant program to include over 670 historic battlefields and associated sites from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Since 1996, when the Battlefield Protection Program was first authorized, the program has helped preserve many important sites, including, for example, the Fort Gregg, New Market Heights Battlefield in Virginia.

In fiscal year 2011, a protection grant helped preserve a 7.2-acre property best remembered because of the unquestioned valor of the African American Union soldiers who fought there. There are many other examples that I could point to: the Wilderness Crossroads, the Reynolds Tract, Perryville Battlefield in Kentucky, the Slaughter Pen Farm, Fredericksburg Battlefield in Virginia, and so forth.

H.R. 2489 would allow the American Battlefield Protection Program to collaborate with State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and willing sellers--and I do want to emphasize that point--to protect the most endangered historical sites, and to provide up to half the costs of purchasing battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development.

From Lexington, where the shot was heard around the world, to Gettysburg, where Lincoln brilliantly summarized the description of the conception and proposition of our Nation, the stories of the American Revolution and the Civil War bring to life the ideals of liberty and democracy fostered by our Founders.

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 historic sites.

History is best experienced by those who can touch it, feel it, and live it, and the battlefields of the American Revolutionary War, 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.

In my home State of New Jersey, there are more sites of military engagements than in any other State. More military engagements were fought in New Jersey than in any other State. New Jersey played an influential role in the War for Independence.

I was pleased to join Representative Frelinghuysen and Senator Lautenberg, and the rest of the New Jersey delegation, in establishing some years ago the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area in our State. The Crossroads Association has made enormous progress toward promoting our State's rich heritage, and the bill before us today, I think, is vital for organizations like Crossroads in New Jersey and others to perform their important work.

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

Preserving these American historic treasures is essential

to remember the sacrifices our ancestors made to secure our

freedom and independence, and to preserve our Republic.

Historical sites, once lost, are gone forever. They exist only on the pages of books and in fading memories. We must act to preserve these valuable sites while we still can. Approving this bill will demonstrate that the Members of this House can work together. Historic preservation is not a Republican issue, not a Democratic issue. Historic preservation is an American issue because it is our shared history that we are working to preserve and to protect.

I thank the majority for working with me on this bill. During the 111th Congress, similar legislation was twice approved by this body with near unanimous support. In this Congress, the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act is again enjoying bipartisan support, and I certainly hope the other body will act promptly so that we can get about the work of preserving these sites.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2489, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amended version of H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction & Syria Human Rights Act.

I am a co-sponsor of and voted for the original version of this bill when it was on the House floor in December 2011. Since that time, the bill has been refined in the Senate with language designed to essentially paralyze Iran's oil sector, which has already seen its oil exports fall by 60 percent as a result of sanctions imposed to date. The improved bill before us even more broadly targets Iran's oil sector and anyone who tries to do business with Iran in this area. It will prevent the Central Bank of Iran from repatriating funds from the sale of oil as part of bilateral trade agreements Iran may have with other nations. Indeed, prior sanctions passed by this Congress have caused India and Turkey to deny Iranian banks licenses to set up branches in those nations. Finally, this bill includes sanctions targeting Syrian officials responsible for the massacres in that nation since the Syrian people began their uprising more than 18 months ago.

These are important steps we must take as part of a strategy to use every means available to compel Iran to meet its international obligations. Iran must renounce any effort to acquire nuclear weapons, and that claim must be verified through thorough, intrusive on-site inspections and monitoring.

I should also note that yesterday, President Obama announced a fresh set of sanctions against Iran's energy and petrochemical sectors based on existing sanctions law and his own authority as president. As President Obama noted this week, ``The United States remains committed to a diplomatic solution, but the onus is on Iran to abide by its international obligations. If the Iranian government continues its defiance, there should be no doubt that the United States and our partners will continue to impose increasing consequences.'' The government of Iran should understand that Congress, on a bipartisan basis, is sending the same message by passing H.R. 1905. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleague a recent article by my good friend Richard Leone, the former President of the Century Foundation. In his article ``The Unfinished War'' Leon reminds us all that ``by ignoring the poor we undermine the welfare of everyone in the 99 percent living from pay check to pay check.'' As Congress debates taxes, government investments, and countless other issues, I hope all of my colleagues will keep his sage words in mind.

[From the Huffington Post, July 6, 2012]

The Unfinished War

Nearly 50 years ago President Lyndon Johnson rallied the

nation in support of a ``War on Poverty.'' It was a goal

widely accepted as necessary and realistic. While total

``victory'' might not have been unachievable, the effort was

embraced and pursued by many leaders of both parties. The

Nixon administration, for example, played a key role in

advancement of the earned income tax credit and Ronald Reagan

reached an agreement with the then Democratic Speaker of the

House, Tip O'Neill, to strengthen Social Security's finances

for another generation (today, about half of the nation's

elderly would fall below the poverty line without Social

Security).

While Johnson's initiatives and subsequent policies didn't

end poverty, they sure made a dent in it. Americans began the

1960s with 22.4 percent of the population living in poverty,

but by the early 1970s that percentage had been cut in half.

Not unconditional victory, but a major policy triumph

nonetheless. Since that time the poverty rate has fluctuated

between about 11 percent and 15 percent, reaching the upward

proportion during the Reagan years and the lower end of the

range during the administration of Bill Clinton. This may

seem like a fairly narrow band --unless you're one of the

millions who fall into poverty as the nation moves from the

bottom of the range to the top. Right now, as we struggle to

recover from the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the share of

Americans living in poverty is back to levels not seen since

1993.

So is a renewal of the war against poverty in the offing?

The current balance of political forces suggests that, rather

than muster all the weapons we have to fight for the poor,

many are willing to settle for uneasy neutrality. This is one

``war of choice'' we choose not to wage. Austerity is the

watchword of the day defined somewhat differently but

accepted by the mainstream of both parties as the bedrock of

policy for the foreseeable future.

With lower expectations of growth projected for the next

several years and continuing competitive pressures from

abroad it is hard for most observers to see an optimistic

scenario in which recovery accelerates to the point of

leading to a new 1990s style period of prosperity. While this

clearly sets limits on what is possible, it also opens up

opportunities for those who wish to use the current

difficulties as a lever to win arguments that are geared to

their core values. Deregulation, weakening of unions, and

further cuts in taxes for the wealthy and corporate America

are all part of an ideological agenda that seems practical

only because of the shifts of political forces and the

imperatives of the financial weakness. To be sure there will

be resistance to cuts in education, reductions in

infrastructure spending, the weakening of Medicaid, and other

radical departures from previous policies. But the defenders

of the social contract seem at a distinct disadvantage. And

what is not present in the debate, indeed has become

virtually invisible in the media, is the issue of poverty.

In fact, the United States has proven over several decades

to be more tolerant of poverty and of homelessness and other

associated ills than is the case in other industrialized

countries. One can only conclude from the current reality

that even discussing the issue of reducing poverty is a

luxury. Like support for the arts, it is off the table during

these difficult times. Workers have largely lost their past

generous instincts about social programs after a generation

of stagnant wages. Slightly further up the ladder, families

who were until recently considered themselves solidly middle

class now are scrambling to maintain their standard of

living--and even their jobs.

Yet, the United States is still a wealthy country, by all

measures among the wealthiest in the world. And it clearly

has the resources to provide a decent standard of living for

its workers and citizens, its children and elderly. Other

countries do so without much fuss. We, on the other hand,

have rationalized increasing concentrations of wealth and

income as somehow producing results that will be better for

everyone. At the same time, our expenditures on the things

that might change the circumstances of average Americans are

meager by international standards. Elementary and secondary

education, an historical strength, is being squeezed by

budgetary problems at the state and local level. College aid

and support for public higher education is shrinking. And,

retraining programs for those who have lost their jobs due to

the globalization of manufacturing and markets are nowhere

close to what is available, for example, within the European

Union.

Overall, the United States has achieved levels of

inequality not seen for generations and now ranks near the

top among industrial nations in inequality. These are not

trivial statistics for they reflect very different

perceptions of what is important in the world of politics and

government. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that those who can

afford it pay for our campaigns and reap the rewards while

average citizens, frustrated and angry, turn against their

government because they don't see it helping them. Facts seem

irrelevant; the U.S. has lower tax rates than almost all of

the other industrialized countries and government employment

has dropped sharply in the past few years, yet the

explanation for hard times is that the government is taxing

too much and spending too much. In this hostile environment

it may be no wonder that new programs to help the poor get

short shrift. In this Darwinian environment, we simply can't

afford to help them.

It's past time to connect the dots and see that by ignoring

the poor we undermine the welfare of everyone in the 99

percent living from pay check to pay check. We must revive

our generous national nature. And more selfishly come to see

that we might find ourselves in their shoes. It may be that

the poor will always be with us, but that doesn't mean it's

OK to ignore them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3803, which would make abortions performed at 20 weeks gestation or later unlawful in the District of Columbia.

Our first priorities in the House of Representatives must be helping to foster job creation and supporting middle class families.

Instead, the Republicans once again have chosen to take up divisive social issues and continue their war on women with a radical assault on women's health care. This time, we are discussing a bill that would be a dangerous intrusion into the lives of women as well as the governance of the District of Columbia.

Once again, the Majority is asking Congress to play doctor. This bill is an attempt to ban safe, legal, and often medically-necessary abortion services for women in the District of Columbia without the consent of the city's residents or representatives. It seems to me to be even unconstitutional.

Even when the Republicans could have received input from District of Columbia representatives, they refused. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton was denied the opportunity to testify during a congressional hearing on this bill that would affect the health and safety of the women in the District of Columbia.

Besides being misguided and offensive, H.R. 3803 is dangerous. This bill has only a narrow exception for the life of the woman. This bill has no exception at all for cases of rape or incest.

It is clear that this legislation is part of a broader strategy to ban abortion everywhere not just in the District of Columbia.

I oppose this anti-choice, anti-woman, and anti-District of Columbia bill and urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 134 to condemn in the strongest possible terms the heinous atrocities that occurred in Aurora, Colorado.

But future generations will condemn us if sole response to this massacre is the passage of this resolution.

As we watch the news from Colorado with horror and sympathy for the families, we should remember that each day more than 80 Americans are killed by gunfire, unnecessary tragedies. Arguments that gun safety legislation won't help the situation seem to me illogical or blindly ideological.

Earlier this week we held a moment of silence for the victims and their families. I hope Congress does not remain silent about the many things we can do to try to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future. We must increase our attention to mental health issues, we must support our local first responders with the tools and resources they need, and we must implement real and sensible gun control measures.

Madam Speaker, today we are considering the so-called President Obama's Proposed 2012-2017 Offshore Drilling Lease Sale Plan Act (H.R. 6168).

This legislation, to require the Department of the Interior to conduct the very offshore drilling plan they are already set to implement, has been rushed to floor just so that the majority could vote against it in a political stunt. Even the sponsor of this bill will oppose it.

Although I have serious concerns with the DOI's plan to hold lease sales in the Arctic, where spill response capabilities are virtually nonexistent and the merits of opening this pristine environment to drilling remain unclear, the DOI's five-year plan stands in stark contrast to the House Republican plan for offshore oil and gas development.

The Republican plan amounts to yet another attempt to open up nearly every last piece of our public lands to drilling and hand even more giveaways to Big Oil. It is important to note that the President's plan does not provide for oil and gas lease sales off of the coast of New Jersey.

For these reasons, I will vote for H.R. 6168. But I want the Record to reflect that my vote for this bill is not an endorsement of expanded drilling in the Arctic or seismic exploration off of the coast of New Jersey. I strongly oppose drilling off of the coast of New Jersey and in the Mid-Atlantic and I offered an amendment to the bill we are considering to prevent any new drilling in that region.

Along with my Democratic colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee, I have offered bills to implement the safety recommendations of the National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and to establish a fee on inactive leases as an incentive for oil companies to begin producing on the lands they already hold--of course, applying up- to-date environmental and safety lessons. I also introduced the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act to make sure that oil companies pay the full cost of damages resulting from future oil spills.

We should be considering these important reform bill not political stunts designed to let the majority pat themselves on the back about what a good job they are doing to promote the development of the natural resources that belong to all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I would like to address a point that the chairman made as he attempted to correct Mr. Markey and said that there have been a number of wind energy bills considered. I think we would gladly count those votes in the column of gutting the national environmental protection act, but wind, no. The wind industry did not support any of those bills that he was talking about or amendments. They are not wind legislation. They are environmental spoilage legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill would allow drilling off the coast of every State in the east coast, from Maine to South Carolina, and off of California and in Bristol Bay, off of Alaska, which is, I might add, one of our Nation's most important salmon fisheries. By reviving long dead lease sales in these fishery areas, they would be reviving sales that the Bush administration issued just 4 days before they left office.

Now, it's interesting that tomorrow we will consider Republican legislation on this floor that is intended to prohibit midnight regulations, yet, today, we have a midnight drilling lease sale. They are, in effect, trying to reinstate the Bush administration's midnight offshore leasing plan. So I just want my colleagues on the other side to know that tomorrow, when we are talking about midnight regulations, that they were actually talking about it a day in advance.

The other side has also made the point that the administration's offshore drilling plan would reinstate a moratorium. Quite the opposite. Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration's offshore drilling plan already, now, makes more than 75 percent of our oil and gas resources available for drilling. They are not doing what the Republicans are saying they are doing.

Two months ago, industry analysts were projecting that, by the end of this year, we would have 50 percent more floating rigs operating in the gulf than before the BP spill. It turns out they were wrong. Not by the end of this year. It's already happened. We have about 50 percent more rigs operating in the gulf today. We have more rigs operating in the United States than in the rest of the world combined.

And they're saying the President is trying to kill the oil industry.

H.R. 6082 ignores the fact that President Obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy has successfully reduced our dependence on foreign oil from 57 percent in the last year of the Bush administration to only 45 percent today. It ignores the fact that our oil production is at an 18- year high.

It does raise the question of why we have this legislation in front of us at all if not to maybe embarrass the President. But, no, the President will not be embarrassed by the facts, and I hope we will deal with the facts here.

This legislation is unnecessary and unwise--unnecessary because the drilling is taking place, and unwise because the other side wants to strike all of the environmental protections that, rather than weakened, should be strengthened.

Later we will be considering an amendment that I will offer to strike the language from the underlying bill that requires the Department of the Interior to conduct a single multisale environmental impact statement for all new areas opened for drilling.

You may recall, Mr. Chairman, I said a moment ago that this legislation talks about drilling from Maine to South Carolina, off California and in Alaska. And they propose to say a single environmental impact statement will deal with that? Well, that's like the environmental impact statement that applied to the BP drilling in the gulf that talked about walruses. Yes, because they were using the same environmental impact statement that they had used in Alaska previously.

No, the protection of the environment requires a little more attention than that. Congress has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that offshore oil and gas drilling is occurring in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.

Also, later, we will be considering an amendment that I will offer that has to do with the royalties that will be collected--or should be collected--from offshore drilling.

The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last year. In the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize on the pain of Americans at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits per day. And this legislation that is brought to the floor by the Republicans here wants to allow them to drill in many places without paying any royalties, without paying a fee to the taxpayers for the oil that the taxpayers own.

Right now, more than 25 percent of all oil produced offshore on Federal lands is produced without paying a penny of royalty. That should be changed.

My constituents--and I think the constituents of any Member of this House--would say it's only fair that these oil companies pay for what they use.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, in 1969, many in America encountered the phrase ``oil spill'' for the first time. Off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, there was what has now become the granddaddy of oil spills.

Currently representing that area and those beaches is our good colleague. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is a new member of the committee, but who is one of the most energetic and informed members of the committee and passionate about preserving a healthful environment.

Mr. Chair, before the gentleman begins, may I ask the time remaining on each side?

At this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who, on the Appropriations Committee and Interior Appropriations, is a champion for the environment.

May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chair?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) who represents one of the areas that would be affected by offshore drilling, should this go forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple:

``On page 5, line 22, strike section 6.''

This amendment strikes language from the bill that requires the Interior Department to conduct a single multisale environmental impact statement for all of the new areas that would be opened under this bill.

Now, it's not going to happen. We are not going to see this into law. I'm sure this bill is not going anywhere. But if it were, it would be an environmental disaster.

The notion that one environmental analysis would be sufficient for lease sales in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, and Bristol Bay in Alaska is simply absurd. These are very different environments. The steps that would be taken to prepare for drilling would be different in each one. The steps that would be taken during drilling would be different in each one. The steps that would be taken to prepare against an accident would be different in each one, and the steps for a cleanup would be different in each one. In fact, it would be hard to imagine three environments that could be more different. Even along the Atlantic coast from South Carolina to Massachusetts there are differences.

Congress has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that offshore drilling for gas and oil is occurring in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. It's been over 2 years since the worst environmental oil disaster in American history, the BP oil spill, and Congress has yet to enact a single legislative reform.

This committee, instead of doing a bill that--seems to be motivated to try to embarrass the President, I guess, based on a false premise that the President is interfering with the oil industry. They should actually be trying to put in place corrections that have been pointed out that are needed following the knowledge we've learned from the BP oil spill. The independent BP Spill Commission gave Congress a grade of ``D'' for a legislative response.

Now, the Republican majority has said they wanted to wait until all the facts were in before taking action to respond to the gulf spill. Well, the time has come. We've heard from the independent BP Spill Commission, Mr. Chairman; we've heard from the government's joint investigative team, Mr. Chairman; and those reports reached similar conclusions: The BP disaster was preventible, not inevitable. Those reports concluded that corners were cut, bad decisions were made, and stronger safety standards could have helped, in fact, could have prevented the disaster.

In fact, just today, the United States Chemical Safety Board issued its first report on the BP oil spill disaster and found that, when BP looked at offshore operations, it ``focused on financial risks, not process safety risks.''

So that's what we should be doing here today. We should be strengthening the safety, the public health, and the environmental protections instead of saying we're going to drill everywhere and water down the environmental protections.

Here we are considering the 11th drilling bill over the last 18 months. The Republican majority is, once again, seeking to open up vast, vast swaths of America's coastlines to drilling without proper environmental review.

Mandating a single environmental impact analysis for the variety of lease sales included under this legislation is simply insufficient. Truncating environmental review will make drilling less safe, not more safe.

Let me be clear: The authors of H.R. 6082 apparently believe that the Atlantic, the Pacific, and Bristol Bay are similar enough to warrant a single environmental assessment.

An oil spill off the east coast would endanger 200,000 jobs and $12 billion associated with just New Jersey's fishing and tourism industries--and that's not counting the indirect effects as this money flows through our local economies.

Bristol Bay and the North Aleutian Basin form the heart of one of the most productive salmon fisheries on the planet, contributing more than $5 billion every year to our economy, yet the underlying bill opens up these areas to drilling under a truncated environmental review.

My amendment simply strikes the language from the bill that requires a single multisale environmental impact statement and would go a long way toward protecting the environment.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

If the majority Republicans continue to push their ``oil above all'' agenda, then we House Democrats will persist in our attempts to make offshore drilling safe--safe for the workers and safe for the environment--and to make sure that the American taxpayers are getting their fair share of return on the use of their natural resources.

The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last year. In the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize on the pain that Americans feel at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits per day. But did the Americans see increased profits from selling their oil as it was pumped from public lands offshore? No. As a result of a legal quirk in the 1995 law, oil companies are not paying any royalties to the American people on leases issued between 1996 and 2000--none, zero.

In recent years, the amount of free oil these companies have been pumping has gone through the roof as more of these faulty leases have gone into production. In fact, right now, more than 25 percent of all oil produced offshore on Federal lands is produced royalty-free, and these oil companies are getting a complete windfall on 25 percent of all the oil produced offshore in the United States. They don't pay the American people one penny for their drilling regardless of their huge profits. It's just unjust.

According to the Interior Department, American taxpayers stand to lose about $9.5 billion over the next 10 years from this big giveaway to oil companies. Yes, it's a giveaway. The Government Accountability Office projects that all this free drilling will cost us as much as $53 billion over the life of the leases. My amendment would recover these revenues that rightly belong to the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

My amendment would offer oil companies a choice. They could choose either to continue to produce royalty-free oil in the gulf and not get new leases or they could pay their fair share and proceed with this willy-nilly drilling that would be allowed under this law, under this legislation. My amendment does not break contracts. It simply would not force companies to give up their leases. It would impose a condition on future leases. As the Congressional Research Service has stated:

As a general matter, the United States has broad discretion in setting the qualifications of those with whom it contracts.

These oil companies are the most profitable companies in the history of the world, yet they receive more than $4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies. On top of that, they get to drill for free on all of these public lands. Because of a quirk in the 1995 law, which came about because that Republican Congress was not eager to make oil companies pay, we shouldn't continue to give them a free ride.

If my colleagues on the other side are serious about paying down the deficit and realistically financing necessary investments in this Nation, then there is no excuse for not supporting this amendment to recover about $1 billion a year--actually, somewhat more than that probably--that is rightfully owed to the American people.

It's time to end this taxpayer rip-off once and for all.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I cannot support this bill in its current form.

It's telling that every domestic program in this year's budget is taking a hit--in some cases, a huge hit. The House majority seems perfectly fine with cutting grant funding for our firefighters, our cops, and other first responders. The House majority thinks it's good public policy to cut programs designed to help the most vulnerable in our society, but any suggestion that we need fewer defense contractors provokes howls of protest. Any suggestion that national security- related corporate welfare should be ended--and I'm referring to the over-budget F-35 program as a prime example--evinces the most hysterical rhetoric about ``weakening America's defenses.''

Let's deal with the facts. We spend more on defense that most of the rest of the world combined. We won the Cold War over 20 years ago, yet this budget continues to fund unnecessary and radically over-cost Cold War legacy weapons programs that we don't need, can't afford and won't help us deal with the kind of terrorist threat we face now and into the future. The House majority is throwing the poor under the bus even as it throws a kiss to the military-industrial complex.

The bill also continues funding a war that should have been over long ago. As I've said since 2009, our continued presence in Afghanistan is prolonging the conflict, not helping end it. The President's ill- considered assassination-by-drone policy in Pakistan, which now features Vietnam war-style ``signature strikes'' against groups of individuals without verification of their status as terrorists, has led to the deaths of an increasing number of innocent civilians. Indeed, the escalation of the drone strikes and the loosening of the intelligence standards under which they operate comes even after Osama bin Laden was killed last year.

The original rationale for invading Afghanistan--getting bin Laden and his associates--no longer exists, yet this bill continues to fund a war whose purpose has clearly been achieved. There is perhaps no greater example of a policy on autopilot than our war in Afghanistan, which is one of the many reasons I do not support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I wish to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of the Committee, but let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Washington and Chairman Young for accommodating my request, for the second year in a row, for an additional $20 million to be included in the appropriations bill for suicide prevention and outreach programs.

The committee last year honored this request, and I think it's a clear demonstration of the committee's intent that the Department do more and more to end this epidemic of suicide among our Active-Duty, Guard and Reserve force.

I do have a clarifying question I would like to pose to the gentleman from Washington.

Is it the committee's intent that the $20 million in this legislation in additional suicide prevention funds be made available for successful suicide prevention programs, such as New Jersey's Vets4Warriors peer- to-peer counseling and outreach program?

I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman.

I would also like under general leave to insert in the Record a letter from the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and the Marine Corps League to Secretary Panetta concerning this Vets4Warriors program.

June 15, 2012.

Hon. Leon E. Panetta,

Secretary of Defense,

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Secretary: As a group of the nations' leading

veteran service organizations we take very seriously our

commitment to the men and women who serve in uniform. They

have answered the call and put their lives in mortal danger

to protect the nation from adversaries and to advance our

national security interests. One of the most important things

we can do to honor their service and give something back to

those who have given us so much is to ensure that they have

healthy conduits to alleviate their mental and psychological

anguish.

Unfortunately, the nation has not yet succeeded in bringing

this to pass. Though many programs and alternatives have been

explored by the Departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs,

few or perhaps none have been as successful as the

Vets4Warriors program. The program is based on the New Jersey

Vet2Vet program, a nationally-recognized peer support program

that has received critical acclaim for over 7 years.

Vets4Warriors, the nascent program of the Army National

Guard--a mere six months old--is showing incredible promise

and we are confident that it will be as successful nationally

as Vet2Vet has been in New Jersey.

Already, this program has received over 7000 calls and

nearly 500 inbound contacts through other means such as

Internet-based chats. Vets4Warriors provides effective, on-

going peer support for men and women from all service

branches--past and present. Any military personnel, family

member or veteran can call this toll-free line 24/7 and have

the call answered immediately by a carefully trained veteran

peer counselor. We believe there are none better positioned

to understand and assist with the rigors of military life

than someone who has lived it. The calls are all confidential

and can be anonymous. The peer counselors are able to triage

the callers' needs, provide crisis intervention, local

referrals for any needed services such as mental health,

financial counseling, legal aid, or a host of other possible

needs. At all times, a licensed mental health professional is

immediately available to the peer counselor, should the

situation warrant it. The goal is to create a stigma-free

environment that encourages service members to contact

Vets4Warriors when any concerns arise and the peer counselors

help prevent these problems from becoming crises. There is

also a formal relationship with the National Veterans Crisis

Line, so calls to Crisis Line that are not crises are

transferred to Vets4Warriors and crisis calls to

Vets4Warriors can be ``warm transferred'' to the Veterans

Crisis Line. Vets4Warriors strives to use all existing

resources and not duplicate any of them.

These and other characteristics make this program unique

and successful. However, what truly sets their work apart is

that they show their commitment to individuals by proactively

reaching back to each person that contacts Vets4Warriors to

make sure they are getting the help they need, preventing

problems from becoming crises. Vets4Warriors has made

approximately 8400 follow-up calls to veterans who have

contacted them--about 900 or 11% more than their incoming

call volume. Every single call is logged into a database, so

there is extensive information available on who is calling,

why they are calling and the outcomes of the calls.

Vets4Warriors employs 27 veteran peer counselors

representing all branches of service, so callers may even

choose a peer counselor by their military experience. The

same peer counselor will maintain contact with the caller

over weeks or months, until the issues are resolved. They

will also become advocates for the callers, should that be

necessary. To our knowledge, no other program provides this

kind of personal investment in the service member and offers

the variety of services needed to meet the diverse needs of

our military members and their families.

It is because of the enormous success of the program that

we are so determined to ensure it receives the funding it

needs to achieve long-term success. Recent developments have

made us very concerned that the program will not be budgeted

for in 2013, and we urge you to make funding this program a

top priority. The investment is marginal, yet the impact is

huge. The health and readiness of the military depends on

personnel that are resilient against the stressors of

military service, both on and off the battlefield. Having

seen it first-hand, we believe Vets4Warriors is a tremendous

program that must be given a legitimate opportunity to

succeed. With your support, we have every reason to believe

that it will make a measurable difference in the lives of

many veterans, military personnel and family members, and we

strongly urge you to ensure full funding for the program.

Respectfully,

Stewart M. Hickey, National Executive Director, American

Veterans, Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD.

Barry A. Jesinoski, Executive Director, Disabled American

Veterans, Maine Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.

Michael A. Blum, Executive Director, Marine Corps League,

Merrifield, VA.

Peter S. Gaytan, Executive Director, The American Legion, K

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Robert E. Wallace, Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign

Wars of the U.S., Maryland Avenue, NE., Washington, DC.

In this letter, the five veteran service organizations note that of all the suicide prevention programs and alternatives explored by the Department, ``perhaps none have been more successful than the Vets4Warriors program.''

I raise this letter, Mr. Chairman, because just this past week, the National Academies of Science released a report on the DOD and the VA's response to this explosion of PTSD cases and suicide-related mental health problems for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

We want to make sure that the successful programs are recognized; and to date, no servicemember or veteran who has used these Vets4Warriors or vet-to-vet program has taken his or her own life. They have been successful.

One of the shortcomings in our government's approach to dealing with the suicide epidemic among servicemembers and veterans is the assumption that only programs within the DOD and within the VA are capable of dealing with this crisis. Our experience in New Jersey strongly suggests otherwise, and I ask the gentleman from Washington and the chair of the committee for their help in prodding the National Academies and the government at large in evaluating the potential positive role that community-based programs like Vets4Warriors can play in helping defeat the suicide epidemic among our troops and veterans.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, I would reiterate my thanks to the chairman and to the ranking member for the strong attention and sensitive attention that they have given to this matter.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

The House passed its version of this legislation in May 2012, with my strong support. The Senate has elected to improve the loan guarantee and stock-pile authorities in its version, which I am also pleased to support.

United States and Israel have built a strong, unique and special relationship, and passage of this legislation will only strengthen those bonds. The political changes that are sweeping through North Africa and the Middle East are creating new uncertainties for the United States and Israel. The revolutions that are underway may not produce the much-hoped for democratic ``Arab Spring''. Indeed, the ascension of Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamad Morsi to the Egyptian presidency is a development whose consequences cannot be predicted with certainty at the moment. During such times of uncertainty, it is important that America send a clear message to the region that we will continue to stand by our ally, Israel. This bill helps us do exactly that, which is why I am pleased to support it.

I thank my friend, the ranking member.

Madam Chair, today we're considering the so-called National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012. Now, despite the bill's title, it has almost nothing to do with national strategic and critical minerals production.

In fact, under the guise of promoting the development of minerals critical to the United States' national security, this legislation would reshape mining decisions on public lands for almost all minerals. You heard Mr. Markey talk about gravel and sand and other things that can fall under the definition here of critical minerals.

There's a list of problems with this bill that is long, and several of the amendments we'll consider today will attempt to address the egregious provisions that would truncate important environmental review.

Make no mistake, this is a giveaway. It is free mining, no royalties, no protection of public interest, exemption from royalty payments, near exemption from environmental regulations, near exemption from legal enforcement of the protections. And it's unnecessary.

Madam Chairman, the Natural Resources Committee has already reported out legislation, on a bipartisan basis, to lay the groundwork for developing critical and strategic mineral production. Nearly a year ago, July of 2011--yes, 12 months ago--the committee reported out H.R. 2011, on a bipartisan basis, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011, by unanimous consent. That bill would improve our understanding of critical strategic mineral deposits and aid in their development.

That legislation is not only bipartisan, it's supported by the National Mining Association, for heaven's sake. The president and CEO of the National Mining Association, Hal Quinn, issued a statement when the bill was passed out of committee, saying, ``The House Natural Resources Committee took important bipartisan action today to ensure U.S. manufacturers, technology innovators, and our military have a more stable supply of minerals vital to the products they produce and use.''

He went on to say that legislation ``will provide a valuable assessment of

our current and future mineral demands and our ability to meet more of our needs through domestic minerals production.''

Yes, a year ago we reported out a bill, on a bipartisan basis, that would do what this legislation purports to do. Instead, we're taking up this legislation, which is a giveaway.

The legislation we could be dealing with actually deals with strategic and critical minerals. If the majority were to bring it to the floor, I'm sure it would pass in an overwhelming, bipartisan way and would likely be passed by the other body and signed into law.

We should be able to work in this fashion when it comes to improving our supply of rare earths and other strategic minerals and ensuring that we're not dependent on China and other nations for their supply, but the majority is not interested, evidently, in working in a bipartisan fashion. Instead, they're moving this bill, H.R. 4402, which has almost nothing to do with strategic minerals and is really about giveaways to the mining industry. This bill is a Trojan horse and has no chance of becoming law.

Why are we playing these games? Why are, I should say, they playing these games with our need to develop strategic minerals? We should be working in the kind of fashion that led to last year's bill.

The majority should shelve this giveaway to the mining industry and bring up the other Critical Minerals Policy Act to the floor immediately.

I thank the gentleman.

I just wanted to address the point raised by the committee chair. Where in the bill, he asks, are there exemptions from environmental review?

Well, section 102 is where they are, right at the front of this bill, page 4, if he wanted to know the page number. Under section 102, the lead agency can determine whether the NEPA law, the National Environmental Policy Act, even applies to a particular project. The whole idea of the National Environmental Policy Act is that there would be an independent review that involves public input, input from all affected interests, and input from somebody who speaks for the land and somebody who speaks for the trees.

One of my colleagues a few moments ago said mining affects only a tiny, tiny fraction of the land. Well, that is, if you ignore everybody who's downstream and downwind.

Section 102 allows deferring and relying on data from reviews that have been performed not under NEPA standards. The majority says, well, State reviews should suffice.

Well, does anybody remember a State called Montana that was controlled by copper interests? Do you think that State's reviews of a copper mining environmental impact would suffice?

Well, that's the kind of thing that would be permitted under this legislation. It would be whether to prepare a document, the determination of the scope of any review, the submission and review of any comments from the public. They could say no public comments are permitted. I consider that a real abrogation of our responsibility and, yes, a real removal of environmental protection.

I thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to clarify further the point raised by the chairman that

this does not eviscerate environmental protections.

I talked about section 102, and the chairman came back and said, well, section 101 just refers to the Presidential order that allows certain infrastructure projects to move ahead with expedited environmental review. First of all, it is only expedited environmental review--it is not with removal of environmental review--and that was talking about specific critical construction projects.

What this would do would allow the exemption, essentially, from environmental review for any of the materials that go into the construction project, including gravel and sand. All of that would be exempt because the mining companies could negotiate a timetable for each step of the review process. The mining companies could enter into a negotiation for determining whether there would be public comment or whether partial previous reviews would suffice.

Furthermore, section 103 directs the agency overseeing this project to prioritize, to give the highest priority, to maximizing the production of the mineral resource. In other words, that relegates any review, any challenge to the regulatory process, to secondary, tertiary or nonexistent status. It says maximizing production has the highest priority. This is a giveaway to mining companies. This is not about providing strategic and critical minerals.

The other side has talked at length about the importance of these minerals to our modern technology today for batteries and cars and magnets and all sorts of other things. They're right, we should be ensuring a good supply of these things; but this bill does not do it.

Madam Chair, I have used the phrase ``giveaway,'' as have others today several times. The ranking member spoke about the wheel of giveaways. One day, it's oil. Another day, it's timber. Today, it's mining. There is also a lot of concern about the special interests that are represented here by this.

I offered an amendment to this bill to ensure that the companies involved, the mining companies, could not continue to extract valuable minerals for free, minerals that belong to the American people, without accountability for their expenditures to obtain political influence. My amendment, which unfortunately was not allowed by the Rules Committee, would have simply required that mineral exploration and mining companies disclose their contributions for political influence over the previous 5 years in order to obtain new leases--perfectly legal and, I would say, perfectly reasonable.

The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United ruled that corporations may spend freely in elections, which I believe constituted a blow to popular democracy. It overturned a century-old doctrine going back to Teddy Roosevelt restricting corporate money in campaigns. The flawed decision opened floodgates on corporate spending to influence, maybe even to dominate, our elections. Because of that decision, American democracy has come to be defined by super PACs and similar organizations.

The amendment I offered would have helped to restore some sanity and transparency to this process by requiring that mining companies disclose their campaign contributions over the previous 5 years in order to receive new leases for public lands.

As Speaker Boehner said on ``Meet the Press'' a few years back:

I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full

disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise

and how it is spent. I think that sunlight is the best

disinfectant.

I agree. We should be doing that in this case as well. Promoting the development of minerals that are critical to core national priorities and that are genuinely susceptible to supply disruption, like rare Earth elements, should be an area where Democrats and Republicans can work together, not one where special interests advance one partisan interest over another. Unfortunately, the majority's hurry to give yet another handout to the mining industry means that we are not having that debate here today.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Almost 15 years ago, the Forest Service began the process of reviewing the management of the last remaining, undeveloped forests, the so-called roadless areas.

In 2001, the Bush administration, yes, the George W. Bush administration, issued regulations to protect these areas in an effort recognized as one of the most far-reaching conservation initiatives taken by the Federal Government in decades.

Now, a decade later, after litigation, 60 million acres of our forests, and the clean water derived from those forests, are now protected from harmful development. Three hundred fifty four municipal water supplies flow through roadless areas on their way to homes and businesses. These areas include sacred sites for Native Americans. They include biological strongholds for fish and wildlife. The continued protection of these areas is something that people all over America care about.

I know the gentleman thinks that this is somehow infringing on Alaska. The point that must be made is this is in the national interest, and continued protection of these areas is common sense. It is what I know my constituents tell me they want.

For the record, there are already 380,000 miles of roads in the rest of our national forests, with only 20 percent maintained to adequate standards of safety.

The gentleman from Alaska offers an amendment that purports to waive the roadless rule for the purposes of mineral development. However, both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management say that the current policy does not prevent mineral developers from accessing development sites in our forests. All the current policy requires is careful consideration before access for mining operations is permitted.

I recognize that southeast Alaska, we all recognize that southeast Alaska is a unique place that requires access by boat and helicopter. However, mine operators have been able to get the approval necessary for that access. This is a waiver that is overly broad, which Federal agencies tell us is unnecessary for the purposes purported here. And it just invites conflict where, for a decade now, there has been resolution.

Congress has debated the roadless policy for a decade--actually for many decades, but for a decade--and opponents of the policy have had their day in court. Congress, the public, and the courts agree that they have supported the protections, including protections for those holding valid existing mineral rights. This amendment is not necessary, and I urge its defeat.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman is right, this affects more than Alaska. This affects the country at large. The roadless rule has been debated. It has been litigated. It should be considered settled.

The Young amendment, as the gentleman has explained, derives from his interest in having road access for mineral development in Alaska. Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management--I repeat--say that the current policy does not prevent the mineral developers from accessing development sites. We don't need to overturn a well-debated, well-litigated, settled matter of the roadless rule.

Just to be clear, the amendment that the gentleman from Alaska offers would exempt all areas of identified mineral resources in land use designations, et cetera, from the procedures detailed and the rules promulgated under title 36, Code of Federal Regulations.

This is sweeping and it is not necessary.

Again, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, of course we want this country to have the minerals that it's dependent on; but need I repeat again that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management say that current policy does not prevent mineral developers from accessing the development sites. This amendment is not necessary, and it would overturn very important resolutions that protect the public lands in the public interest.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey who is so expert in these matters.

Matt from West Windsor 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. At age 25 and because of the Affordable Care Act, she can enroll as a dependent on her father's Federal employee benefits plan.

Mary from Princeton wrote:

Our 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.

Many people in New Jersey tell me they need those things that the health reform law does for them, including protections against premium increases, as well as many others, like coverage for young adults, ensuring that people with preexisting conditions have access to health insurance and the elimination of lifetime limits.

Now, the majority here who are trying to repeal this law say they want to keep those provisions. I say get real. You cannot repeal the law and still have the provisions of the law in effect.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4018, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act, of which I am a cosponsor, and I thank my colleague from across the Delaware River, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for his work on this extremely important issue.

During the early morning hours of August 28, 2011, as Central New Jersey was bearing the brunt of Tropical Storm Irene, the Princeton First Aid and Rescue Squad was called to investigate a vehicle submerged in raging floodwaters with the occupants possibly trapped inside. Michael Kenwood, a 39-year-old volunteer emergency medical and rescue technician, entered the water tied to his partner in an attempt to reach the stranded vehicle. The two quickly realized that the current was too strong and tried to turn back, but Michael lost his footing and was sucked into the current. When he was pulled from the water, Michael was unconscious and not breathing. Michael died later that day, leaving behind a wife, Beth, and 3-year-old daughter, Laney. The submerged car turned out to be empty.

Michael's death was a tragedy. But what compounded this tragic situation was the fact that, under current law, Michael's family was not eligible for federal death benefits because he was a volunteer member of a non-profit organization. This is just wrong. Michael's sacrifice would be no different if he had been a member of a paid fire department or EMS agency, and federal law should treat it as such. When he was called to enter those floodwaters, Michael did not stop to think, ``I don't get paid for this should I do this?'' He answered the call just like thousands upon thousands of others do each and every day, risking their lives in the service of others, regardless of whether or not they are paid.

This legislation would expand federal benefit programs for the women and men who volunteer for fire departments and rescue squads and are injured or killed in the line of duty. Quite simply, it is the right thing to do. I am glad to see this bill being brought to the floor and I urge my colleagues to support it here today.

Last Saturday, Michael's name was added to the National EMS Memorial in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I would ask that my colleagues join me in remembering Michael's sacrifice, and those made by the other police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical responders who put their lives on the line each and every day to protect ours.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is an illegitimate, politically motivated smear campaign.

Never in the history of the House has a U.S. Attorney General been held in contempt. What makes this resolution particularly outrageous is that there is absolutely no basis for it.

The Attorney General has testified repeatedly about Operation Fast & Furious. The Justice Department has turned over thousands of pages of relevant records about this incident. None of that matters to the majority. Neither does the fact that these kinds of operations were undertaken by the Bush administration. And the majority does not want the public to know that not a single witness was allowed to testify before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee about past ``gun walking'' episodes in the Bush administration. That's why this resolution and the Oversight Committee's ``hearings'' into Fast & Furious are not about ``gun walking''--they are about election year politics.

Rather than dealing with the substantive issue of illegal guns and how to reduce violent gun-related crime, today we have a political stunt that does nothing to solve the problem that cost the life of a federal agent. Mr. Speaker, the public see this for what it is: a politically motivated legislative lynching--and those who support this illegitimate resolution will have to answer for it to the voters.

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

Mr. Chair, much of this bill deals with new giveaways to Big Oil. The issue that I'm raising right now is to deal with a continuing longstanding giveaway.

The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last year; and in the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize on the pain that Americans are feeling at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits per day.

Oil companies are not paying any royalties to the American people on oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico from leases issued between 1996 and 2000. Zero. No royalties. They're pumping this oil for free without paying the taxpayers a single dime. Now they got this giveaway because of an incentive back in 1995 to companies to drill for oil when oil was selling for less than $20 a barrel.

In recent years, the amount of free oil these companies have been pumping has gone through the roof as more of these faulty leases have gone into production. In fact, right now, more than 25 percent of all oil produced offshore on Federal lands is produced royalty-free, no payments to the taxpayers for the use of their land. These oil companies are getting a complete windfall on 25 percent of all the oil they produce offshore in the United States. They do not pay the American people one penny for this right, regardless of the fact that now oil is selling at about $80 a barrel.

The number one entitlement program that should be on the chopping block for Congress shouldn't be Medicare. It shouldn't be Social Security. It shouldn't be health care for children. It should be the free drilling entitlement that oil companies are enjoying on public lands.

According to the Interior Department, American taxpayers stand to lose about $9.5 billion over the next 10 years from this giveaway alone, this giveaway to Big Oil. The Government Accountability Office projects that all of this free drilling will cost us as much as $53 billion over the life of these leases. My amendment would recover those revenues because they belong to the American people. These oil giants already receive $4 billion a year in tax subsidies. They don't need an additional $1 billion or more per year in free drilling.

The amendment would offer oil companies a choice: they can choose either to continue to produce royalty-free oil in the gulf but not be able to receive new leases, or they can agree to pay their fair share and be able to bid on new leases under this bill. And this amendment would not force companies to give up their leases. It would just simply impose a condition on future leases.

The Congressional Research Service has agreed repeatedly that this amendment would not be an abrogation of contracts or constitute a takings, as some of my colleagues have suggested it might. As CRS has stated:

As a general matter, the United States has broad discretion

in setting the qualifications of those with whom it

contracts.

These oil companies are the most profitable companies in the history of the world; yet they receive, as I said--and it's worth repeating--$4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies. They don't need to be drilling for free on public lands as well.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about paying down the deficit and realistically financing necessary investments in this Nation, then there is no excuse for not supporting this amendment to recover roughly $1 billion a year that is rightfully owed to the American people.

It's time to end this taxpayer rip-off, this giveaway to Big Oil.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Chair, this amendment breaks no contracts. We are here because the Congress, well over a decade ago when prices were less than $20 a barrel, decided this giveaway made sense. If it

made sense then, it certainly does not make sense now.

Oil companies drill one-quarter of all offshore oil for free. If the other side is serious about addressing the deficit, this is revenue that should be received.

Please support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.