Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was at the White House meeting with the Vice President and was unable to vote on rollcall votes 450, 451, and 452.

If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 1155, H.R. 2747, and

Mr. Speaker, the United States lost a great citizen and a legend on Sunday when Lois DeBerry passed away. Lois was the Speaker Pro-Temp Emeritus of the Tennessee General Assembly and the longest- serving member of the Tennessee General Assembly. I had the honor to serve with her. She was a great orator, and she was the go-to person of the Tennessee General Assembly on civil rights issues, women's issues, children's issues, education issues, and anything about Memphis. She served with distinction and was recognized all over the country. The Delta Sigma Thetas were valued to her and valued to have her as a member. She was a past president of the National Association of Black Local Elected Officials and respected in the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Yesterday, a flag flew over the Capitol, which I have to present Saturday at her funeral, the day that we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, a march in which Lois participated as a very young person. Her's was a life well lived. She will be missed by all in Memphis and me.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 367, the REINS Act of 2013.

As I noted during our extensive debate in the Judiciary Committee on this bill, it reminds me of the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' I feel like Bill Murray. It's that day over and over again. We come back to the same bill.

We extensively debated this bill in the last Congress; we debated bills very similar to it in this Congress; and, again, we're here debating this bill, which, by any sensible measure and probably a civics student in the 10th grade or less would know that this is a seriously flawed bill that will impede legislation and hurt the American public. It's based on a premise that regulations by themselves stifle job creation, a rather unique concept that we have come to debate in our committee and now on the floor.

H.R. 367 threatens to undermine vital protections that ensure the safety and soundness of the entire range of societal needs, from food safety to clean air and clean water, to workplace safety, to consumer product safety, to financial stability. It does this by bringing most important Federal rulemakings--including those that protect the public like the Affordable Care Act and the implementation thereof, as well as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act aimed at keeping us back from the catastrophic days back in 2008 or 2009 when the world was coming to an end because of derivatives--it takes the implementation of these bills to a screeching halt, a result that will put at risk the well-being of millions of Americans, both from fiscal health and physical health.

The REINS Act would require that both Houses of Congress pass and the President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days before a major rule can take effect. In the House, a committee of jurisdiction would have but 17 legislative days to consider a joint resolution of approval, after which it would automatically be discharged from the committee and sent to the full House--certainly not enough time to do a good job of reviewing the regulations. The House must consider such a resolution either on the second or fourth Thursday of every month, assuming that the House is even in session on that Thursday.

The bill also defines a ``major rule'' as one having at least a $100 million economic impact or having one of a number of other economic impacts. In all, Federal agencies issue about 50 to 100 major rules every year. That means that if the REINS Act had become law this year, there would only be 5 days left in 2013 for the House to consider 50 to 100 major rules. And while the other side loves gas, as we've seen with the farm bill and THUD, they can't pass it.

Given those traps set forth in the bill, no major rule would ever go into effect. This, in turn, threatens agencies' ability to protect Americans' health, safety, and well-being. It's a way of stifling the opportunity to protect Americans.

Another concern with the REINS Act is the influence of industry lobbyists over rulemaking would tremendously increase. K Street would love it. Given the complexity of the rules at issue and the expedited timeframe for congressional consideration, Members would instead be bombarded with visits, phone calls, and talking points from industry lobbyists, who would no doubt

take advantage of the REINS Act's short-circuited process to shape Members' views about a particular rule, probably within days of a major fundraiser.

On top of all the problems with this bill, it is simply unnecessary. First, to the extent that its proponents are concerned with Congress's accountability for agency rules, there are already numerous tools at our disposal to shape agency rulemaking. For example, Congress can rescind or limit its delegation authority to an agency if an agency acts beyond what we intended. Congress can also disapprove a rule under the Congressional Review Act process, defund enforcement of a rule or an agency through its appropriations and authorization power, overturn specific rules through legislation, and conduct regular oversight activity.

Second, to the extent that the REINS Act's proponents claim that the bill is necessary because the Obama administration has inundated the country with costly regulations, the facts simply do not bear this out. Just because you say ``Obama'' doesn't mean it's bad. Most Americans like Obama. He's been elected President twice.

In an op-ed that appeared in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Doyle McManus cited Cass Sunstein, former director of OIRA, known as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who noted that in President Obama's ``first 4 years in office, he has issued fewer new Federal regulations than any of the four Presidents who came before him, including Ronald Reagan.''

Moreover, the op-ed noted that this President has revoked ``hundreds of outmoded rules that produced savings for government, business, and consumers that will add up to billions.''

Congress has already considered and rejected congressional approval schemes in the past. For instance, Chief Justice John Roberts--not exactly a flaming liberal--criticized legislation that was similar to the REINS Act back in 1983 when he was an associate White House counsel. In a memorandum, he objected that such legislation would ``hobble agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative congressional assent to all major rules'' and would ``seem to impose excessive burdens on the regulatory agencies.''

So before Chief Justice Roberts saved the ACA, he spoke out on this legislation as well in giving us wise counsel.

Finally, the broader premise underlying the REINS Act--that regulation stifles economic growth and job creation--is simply false.

It's pretty incredible that the proponents of antiregulatory bills like the REINS Act continue to make this claim in light of the fact there's absolutely no credible evidence establishing the fact that regulations have any substantive impact on job creation. But do not just take my word for it. Listen to some respected Republicans and conservatives.

Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, said:

Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly

concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to

offer them. The GOP opposes additional government spending

for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending

that would likely lead to further layoffs at all levels of

government. These constraints have led Republicans to embrace

the idea that government regulation is the principal factor

holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama

unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created

uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing

and hiring.

He concludes:

No hard evidence is offered for this claim. It is simply

asserted as self-evident and repeated throughout the

conservative echo chamber.

It's as if you say it enough, people will believe it.

On the related argument that regulations create business uncertainty, Mr. Bartlett has said:

Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans

that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue

an agenda supported by the business community year in and

year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political

opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high

unemployment.

That was Bruce Bartlett from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush days.

Susan Dudley, who headed the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs during the administration of George W. Bush, has been quoted as saying that it is ``hard to know what the real impacts of regulation are.'' She also stated that she was unaware of any ``empirically sound way to assess the impact that proposed rules have on jobs.''

During one of the many hearings held on this issue in the last Congress, the majority's own witness clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, stated in his prepared testimony that ``the focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion and regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''

The REINS Act is seriously flawed in its very conception and based on false premises that regulation kills jobs. Ultimately, it will only serve to needlessly heighten risks to the health and safety--financial and physical--of the American people. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 367, which I feel confident will pass this House and meet a timely death before it gets to see the light of day in the Senate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to set the frame for where we are.

What we're asking is for all major rules and regulations to have to be approved by both the House and the Senate and signed by the President before they would ever go into effect. That message is one of the few things we can agree on--the Senate agreed on the time we can adjourn. That's about what we agree on. Seventeen bills have made it through here in 7 months, and we're talking about 50 to 100 major rules. Not gonna happen.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Before I yield to Mr. Johnson, I would say that I could respond to some of the statements that the gentleman from Alabama made, but I won't do it because I have the highest respect for him. He's one of the finest Members of this House.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 53 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), home of Archie Bell and the Drells.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady in order to explain the fallacies of this bill.

It is not reasonable.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would reserve what few precious minutes and seconds I may have left, and I would like to be informed of how many precious minutes and seconds I have.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a good discussion on this bill. Indeed, it is ``Groundhog Day'' as we have had it so many times. We've just gone around and around.

It is amazing that this body, which I am so proud to serve in, has popularity ratings amongst the American public of less than 10 percent because of the ineffectiveness of the House to work with the Senate and get anything done. Yet here we are, trying to give this body more power over the safety and health--fiscal and physical--of the American public.

One of the gentlemen spoke and said, I don't know how tall something has to be--a dam. I don't know.

Of course he doesn't know. You leave it to the experts. We pass laws. We instruct the agencies to come up with reasonable rules and regulations because they know how to build dams and know how to have airplanes that you can get off of in case of a crash and save people's lives and how to have fire-retardant seats and deal with other safety issues. There are abundant safety issues for the American public.

This is a bad idea. It is an idea that will not create jobs. It will hurt the American public. It will hurt safety and possibly our financial safety as well because it could impede Dodd-Frank from going in to protect the American public from future financial doom like we almost saw in 2008 with derivatives here in this Congress.

So I would ask that we vote ``no,'' that we protect the American public, and that we respect the system that we have had for so many years for safety and health.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment to a bad bill, so it's doubly bad.

This would take almost anything that protects the air, the water, the public from carbon emissions away from the opportunity of the EPA to protect us. Many cities, such as Houston, Texas, and L.A. and other cities, have problems with smog. They have programs that they have to put a price on pollutants that cause urban smog, and these programs are part of the State-approved implementation plans through the EPA to protect the air. They are improving the air quality in Houston and Los Angeles, but under this amendment, if Texas or California ever needed to change these programs, they wouldn't be able to do so. Los Angeles has had enough smog, so has Houston and the rest of the country, and we have to be able to have laws that effectively protect our air.

Public health programs are important, and the amendment would risk the ability of EPA also to have its sanctions that they put into place. Right now, EPA, to ensure civil enforcement procedures, they change their penalties every 4 years to keep up with inflation so they're effective deterrents. This would stop this from happening, and eventually the deterrents would be less than necessary to stop bad actors from engaging in risky behavior that causes harm to the environment and harm to humans.

We just saw in January that Transocean agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve Federal Clean Water Act civil penalty claims for the 3-month- long oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the BP there. BP also has got the same risk. If we don't allow the penalties to be adjusted for inflation, they won't have an effect. The sanctions won't deter bad actors. We saw it in the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion, and we see it as it applies to the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and all those others.

The bottom line is this could have unintended consequences, but its intended consequence is to protect the oil industry from regulations and imperil the American public. This is a bad amendment to a bad bill, and I ask my colleagues to defeat it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I'll just reiterate that this is a bad amendment to a bad bill. It basically puts the interests of special industry--the gas and oil industry, particularly--above the American public's health, clean air, and the environment. If you want to have an Earth that we can give to the next generation that's in as good a shape so that their lungs can survive in it, you won't be for this type of regulation, this amendment, or for this bill.

I ask us to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, this is just another amendment in another area in what's totally a bad concept. The basic concept is that any rule or regulation would have to go through a passage in both the House and the Senate and Presidential approval to become effective. And it would have to happen in committees only on Tuesdays or Thursday, and within 15 days they would have to pass it. Basically, this is creating a Rube Goldberg type of legislative mechanism that would thwart the creation of regulations and rules that protect the American public. That's just plumb wrong.

What this does is tries to gut the EPA, and I'm shocked that my good friends on the other side of the aisle would try to gut the work of one of their great Presidents, Richard Nixon. He served in this House, served in the Senate, and 4 years as vice president. I think he almost eked out 5 years, he had some kind of ethically challenged problem when he was President, but he did create the EPA. He did some good environmental things. I think those things should be standards for the Republican Party. They should hold up the EPA and remember Richard Nixon as one of their party standard bearers, one of the men who served probably the longest time in a major capacity as President and Vice President and Senate leader. And his work on the House Un-American Activities Committee--we can't forget that in this House. To forget Richard Nixon and to minimize his work, I am just amazed, because that's one of the great heroes on the other side of the aisle, I believe.

But the EPA is important. It was good work that he gave us, and it shouldn't be gutted. And to make these rules have to go through passage in the House and Senate, we know the House and the Senate don't get along. They mentioned we got the loan bill through. That's the first thing we've kind of done since we did the Violence Against Women and kind of saved the storm victims of Superstorm Sandy. We really haven't got much done. Oh, I forget, a couple of post offices, we

agreed on them. And maybe some coins for the Hall of Fame or something. But to get these major rules done, it wouldn't happen. And so we're jeopardizing the American public. I urge us to defeat this as a bad amendment to a bad bill. It is deleting the legacy of Richard Nixon.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, was alive when Richard Nixon was doing his service, and I remember him getting on that helicopter, waving good-bye. There were regulations that made sure that he was able to get away from Washington and get home to California, and we need to make sure those regulations that might be impeded by this REINS Act are still in effect so that Presidents like him can make their escape.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a microcosm of this 113th Congress; the macro has been the 40th attempt coming up to repeal ObamaCare. This is a microcosm to try to defeat ObamaCare through a little regulation. It seems like the preoccupation that the other side has with what is one of the most important social safety network provisions passed by this House in history, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and then the Affordable Care Act, is amazing. We've had 40 bills, and now this rule and regulation, to try to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act means your child can stay on your insurance unless they are 26 years of age. It means you can't have lifetime caps on your health insurance. It means you can't be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. It means that being a woman doesn't classify you as having a preexisting condition. It says that certain care comes to you, like colonoscopies or mammograms, without a copay, and it means yearly annual checkups, which can detect disease early and save people's lives. It is a way to provide health care for at least 40 million people in this country who don't have health care.

And it has already been shown to drive down the cost of health care. For those States that have worked with us and that have exchanges, we have seen reductions in what was expected to be the cost of insurance from 25 to 30 to even 50 percent in different States. Health care costs are not rising at the rates that they were otherwise because of the fact that we passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It's important that individuals get more community health centers, which come with this provision. Lots of people, particularly in my district, they

don't live near hospitals and doctors. They need community health centers, and community health centers have been funded and created to give people access to health care otherwise denied.

We are the last industrialized country on the face of the Earth to provide health care for its people, the last industrialized country to do so. That is one of the shames that we have tried to cure with this bill.

And this provision, this amendment to this REINS Act, would deny people that health care coverage. It would say if you have a preexisting condition, too bad, you don't get insurance.

As President Obama said, the Affordable Care Act is insurance reform on steroids. Do you want to have the health insurance industry have total control without regulations, without controls, then you want to defeat it. But the American public doesn't want that. They want their health care costs to contained, and they don't want the insurance companies to have total control. They like the idea of their children having insurance up to the time they're 26, and to have preventive care come without copays, not have yearly caps on your insurance or lifetime caps on your insurance benefits that can be paid out.

So this is a sad state that we've spent so much time in this Congress trying to deny people health care and save their lives.

So this is a bad amendment. I would ask us to defeat it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what this shows is exactly what the situation is. You've got a majority in the House that's against the Affordable Care Act, and you've got a majority in the Senate that's for it.

To have any rules and regulations under it go into effect, the House and the Senate would both have to approve it, which means you could have one House, not both Houses, the way we work, it's a bicameral legislature and the House and the Senate have to work together and pass the bill to become law.

But one House, by not passing it, could kill it--one House veto. This Republican Congress could veto every single regulation under the Affordable Care Act.

And then preexisting conditions, no insurance. Lifetime caps, back in effect. Yearly caps, back in effect. Child's 23, nope, can't stay on dad and mom's policy anymore.

Get hurt, go broke. Too bad. That's just wrong.

And that's what this would do for any regulations. One House could veto and kill legislation. That's antithetical to the bicameral legislature.

That's just one of the many reasons why we should defeat this amendment, defeat the bill, and go on and try to pass a jobs bill, and kill sequester, and see that the National Institutes of Health, which is cut $1.6 billion by sequester, isn't cut.

That's our Department of Defense. They protect us from Alzheimer's, AIDS, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's. Those are the enemies. The National Institutes of Health is the Department of Defense, and we shouldn't be cutting $1.6 billion from them because we're all going to be victims.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I find it interesting that today we're talking about the country is in such danger because of ObamaCare and regulations and rules and all these other things President Obama has done, and the Dow Jones Industrial average almost hit an all-time high of 15,600 and change.

So somewhere something must be working. Thank you, President Obama. Keep going.

Thank you. I appreciate you bringing this amendment. There are a whole lot of opportunities for the people of west Tennessee to benefit from it.

We are an area that has been known to have tornados; we have the potential for an earthquake from Reelfoot Lake. FEMA comes under this, and to stop FEMA from having proper regulations that could protect the public would be a serious mistake. It is important that we safeguard our citizens, particularly when they are victims of natural tragedies.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is twice as bad as the bill because it decreases by $50 million the threshold, which means more and more regulations would have to go through this cumbersome process and really stifle regulations and rules, and that's what this is about.

The Speaker said that the job of this Congress is not to pass legislation but to repeal legislation. That's what these bills are about. They're not to improve the lives of Americans by having more safety and more protection but, rather, to defeat proposals that may come from the EPA, which are to protect the air and the water and our Earth, as well as to protect other areas of safety, whether it's automobiles or airplanes or trains or trucks or whatever.

The fact is that this would make it almost impossible to pass a rule or a regulation, and it would allow one House the ability to kill a regulation. This is a House that doesn't have the expertise within it, which has been said by some of the Members in their saying they didn't know how big to build a dam or whatever. That's why we have government people who study and do research and promulgate rules and regulations-- to protect us--and it's done in a nonpolitical environment. If you bring it to this environment, you're going to have lobbyists coming up, trying to kill things that affect their industries.

This is a yo-yo bill: you are on your own. That's what they're saying basically, that we don't want protections for consumers or protections for citizens. We want to have something laissez-faire: no rules and regulations. You're out there on your own.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

In what I'm sure is no surprise to the Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Once again, this just takes it to another level. It's not just the rules, but then the rules of the rules.

Really what this bill is about is a messaging opportunity. We're supposed to be legislating. The reality is that we don't legislate in Congress; we message. One side says, We're for business. We're against regulations. We're against rules. We want to create enterprise by destroying rules and regulations. The other side, which is my side, says, We're for consumers. We're for safety. We're for protection. We're for health and clean water and clear air. We think that the government process works because it saves people; it saves their lives. We go back and forth.

This would effectively destroy the opportunity to have rules and regulations passed at all. It's not going to get through the Senate, so what it is is a messaging opportunity for us to fill up C-SPAN. It's unfortunate because we should be legislating about jobs and about the sequester. We ought to be talking about benefits that the government does provide, but right now sequestration is taking away important jobs in the Defense Department, moneys from the National Institutes of Health, which would protect people's lives in the long run with treatments and cures that we need, and the next generation will benefit greater than us; yet we're here talking about something that is not going to happen.

It is really unfortunate, because we should be legislating, and this bill just gets us into the weeds, gets us down into the regulations. It's like we're going to strangle the ``bureaucrats.'' But the bureaucrats are the experts who come up with the safety provisions that say your children's toys are going to be safe and your car is going to have brakes and work in the proper manner and your airplane is not going to fall out of the sky when it's not near the airport.

Those are important things to the American people, and if you don't have rules and regulations by experts that can be implemented, we're going to have a lot of accidents. That's why this is a very bad bill and a bad amendment and a bad use of the public's time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time so we can get to the next program on C-SPAN quicker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 38th anniversary of the division of the island of Cyprus, and to encourage all parties in this longstanding dispute to reason together and work to achieve a final settlement that will bring about a united Cyprus.

Over 50 years ago, the Republic of Cyprus was established by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots who were to have hands in the administration of the government and participation in national life. As a result of steps counter to that spirit through the 1960s and early 1970s, the two communities are now isolated from each other. The Greek Cypriot community, as the Republic of Cyprus, enjoys full membership in the European Union while Turkish Cypriots remain largely isolated from the global community. Nevertheless, Turkish Cypriots have demonstrated, time and again, their support for a solution where a bi-zonal, bi- communal federation is secured.

A continuation of the status quo serves no purpose, and prevents all Cypriots from living to their full potential. I ask my colleagues to join me in encouraging both parties to set a timeline of tangible steps to achieve a final agreement, and for the Obama Administration to work with both parties and European partners in securing these steps. Any solution must respect the human rights and freedoms of all Cypriots, and this must be enshrined in the work of the parties.

Let us redouble our efforts so that we do not have to observe the beginning of yet another decade in the life of the division of this

island, in the hope that all Cypriots will be able to live and work together in peace.

Monday, July 29, will be the fifth anniversary of the passage in this House of the first and only apology for slavery and Jim Crow laws in this Nation's history. This Nation had 246 years of slavery and over 100 years of Jim Crow.

The resolution, which passed with only two Republican sponsors, Wayne Gilchrist and Phil English, said that we needed to rectify the lingering consequences of slavery and Jim Crow. Indeed, we still need to. There are many areas in the criminal justice system that show this, such as racial profiling, that the likelihood of being arrested for marijuana is four times as much if you're African American than white, and stiffer sentencing if you are African American. The need for public health and public education, and for jobs, more significant, and a much lower net worth among African Americans, are all vestiges of Jim Crow and slavery.

As we look toward the fifth anniversary of that resolution and the 50th anniversary of the march on Washington, both sides of this aisle need to look toward the least of these--people who have been discriminated against and enslaved by our Nation's laws--and rectify those lingering consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote 399, if present, I would have voted ``no.''

Thank you, sir. I appreciate the time.

Mr. Chairman, this is truly bipartisan in that we are bipartisan in favor and they are bipartisan against. We all, Mr. Chairman, have the best intentions.

But I would submit to the people that speak in favor of the spending of this fund, in theory it is wonderful and it is great; but the same people that endorsed this built a $43 million base that will never be used and will be torn down.

The fact is much of this money cannot be maintained. We are giving moneys to the Afghanis for programs that they cannot maintain--they can't maintain the roads, they can't maintain the equipment that we give them; and so it is wasted. It has gone on and on and on. Much of it has been stolen over the years. There is a lot of theft and a lot of corruption.

The gentleman's amendment, which I joined with him on in a bipartisan fashion, cut $79 million. Mr. Cicilline has an amendment that cuts everything. I've got to compromise the cuts--about half of it. Some of it needs to be cut, if not all of it, but at least half.

We are throwing away moneys that we know from the past are wasted and not doing the job that they are intended to do. Hell is paved with good intentions.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which as originally drawn was like the amendment I offered last year that passed with a pretty strong majority, halves the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund. Mr. Walberg and I were cosponsors on a bipartisan amendment that passed that cut $79 million.

To get this amendment to the same point, we would have to amend it down $60 million, I believe, to get it from the 279 to the cut. I don't know if we want to do an amendment or not. The more money it takes, for me it's fine, but if we wanted to halve it.

I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment to reflect the cut not to be--an amount of 139, but to take into consideration the 79, and so to make this amendment only $60 million. So I would like to offer an amendment to the amendment to make this amendment reflect a $60 million cut to make the total cut 139, which would be half.

Mr. Chairman, that is just better, because this amendment is kind of a compromise between the amendment Mr. Walberg and I had and Mr. Cicilline's. Mr. Cicilline's cut the fund entirely. This cuts it in half. A little more than half is really better.

The fact is, yes, we need the infrastructure in America; but we spent a lot of money on the infrastructure fund in Iraq, and we know from experience that a lot of that money, if not most of it, was stolen and wasted.

The same things happened in Afghanistan. The Inspector General has reported it; and, in fact, Afghani officials have reported it. They do not have the expertise, nor do they have the abilities, to maintain products after they are built. When the roads are constructed, they can't maintain them. So it is throwing money away.

The same thing happened with air-conditioners and other products that we gave the Iraqis and we have given the Afghanis. They cannot maintain them. They can't maintain them when they do construct them, but before that half of it is ripped off and graft. There are rankings of the most corrupt countries on the face of the Earth. Afghanistan is always number one or number two, and continues to be.

No matter how long we stay there and how long we have been there, the level of corruption has remained right at the top. That is not going to change.

Giving this money away is basically encouraging and endorsing and seconding corruption and graft that we have seen in Afghanistan over the years, and waste. This Congress should not be passing funds that we know are going to be corruptly going to officials who are putting it in their pockets, not helping the Afghani people.

In a perfect world, I wouldn't offer the amendment. In a perfect world, I would say, oh, ``Charlie Wilson,'' what a great movie, what a great story, we pulled out too soon. Well, Charlie Wilson was right in theory. He was wrong in application, because they steal and it is corrupt and they cannot maintain it. We couldn't have put enough money and enough people. You have to change the ethics.

I've heard a lot of people here on this floor talk about situations in America. They say, we can't do it, it has got to be the family do it. Well, talk about the family--the whole country is corrupt. They have stolen and stolen and stolen American dollars. We are throwing them away, and we need to stop it.

It should be a place, just as the Walberg-Cohen-Esty-Rigell amendment passed, that this amendment passes, so that we limit the amount of money that is at risk and we save this money for the American taxpayer. We put the money into deficit reduction, the next generation doesn't have to pay for the corruption of the Afghani officials and the waste of Afghanistan with the inability to maintain the projects that they finally might get squeezed out after they steal as much as they can. We should not be funding this.

I would ask that we approve our amendment in the name of fiscal austerity, deficit reduction, anticorruption, and just plain old, good old common sense. We might as well just have a bonfire and burn this money up before it goes over there because it is not going to work. In theory it is great, but in reality it doesn't work. The definition of ``insanity'' is expecting something different when you do the same thing over and over and over and you get the same result and you keep doing it.

So this Congress, which has less than 10 percent popularity right now, doesn't pass an insane amendment to give money to corruption and to waste, I ask you to approve this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All you have to do is look at the top, Mr. Karzai and his brother, who was killed, who was one of the main drug runners down there who was killed. The whole country from the top to the bottom is corrupt.

I thank the gentleman for his thoughts. You can't find honest people there to see that this money gets to their people. They don't care about their people. They care about their own power, their own money, their own riches. They are corrupt, and we are throwing this money away.

Let's face reality and pass the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise today to honor the great contributions of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary here in Washington, D.C., this week.

Founded in 1913, on the campus of Howard University, Delta Sigma Theta is committed to sisterhood, scholarship, and service. It's the largest African American women's organization in the country, and provides assistance and support to communities throughout the world.

Delta has played an important part in civil rights and women's rights, and even in 1913, just after its founding, marched in the women's suffrage march. That was its first activity.

For a century, Delta members have been at the forefront of politics, medicine, law, the arts, military, and faith. Esteemed members of Delta include civil rights heroine and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, the late Dorothy Height, and two of my heroines, Congresspeople Barbara Jordan and Shirley Chisholm. And in the arts, Ruby Dee Davis, Cicely Tyson, and Lena Horne.

Delta's storied history also includes the accomplishments of many women from my hometown, Memphis: Mary Church Terrell, Representative Johnnie Turner, Speaker Pro Tempore Lois DeBerry, the late and great civil rights leader Maxine Smith, National Civil Rights Museum Director Beverly Robertson, and Olympic Gold Medalist Rochelle Stevens.

I salute both the Memphis and Shelby County alumnae chapters and the thousands of Deltas who are currently in our Nation's Capital to celebrate their first 100 years. I thank them for their service, and wish them many more.

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

My amendment, which is worthy of being considered and passed, but not necessarily to be heard, would re-appropriate $50 million from the Weapons Activities account to the Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency account, kind of a compromise about what we've been hearing. It doesn't take too much from nuclear. It gives some back to solar. It's a compromise where we work together.

In this bill, the Weapons Activities account, which had been funded at $7.7 billion, that's more than $190 million over the President's request, and over $95 million more than the account had in 2013. And to offset this increase, which the committee voted, the committee decided to do so by funding the Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency account at only $982 million, slashing that account by almost 50 percent in this budget.

While ensuring the security of the United States is certainly very, very important, the consequences of ignoring climate change trends and data is resulting in a serious and ever-growing threat right here on our own soil.

I know that the goal of everybody here in the House is energy independence, and it's a paramount concern to all of us. However, in order to achieve this goal, we must dedicate ourselves and our budget to the serious business of securing that energy future.

Ensuring that our renewable energy research program is adequately funded is one of the most effective and climate-neutral ways to achieve this goal. For example, solar power is the most abundant energy resource available to the planet, and demand for solar power in the United States is at an all-time high.

As solar prices continue to fall, Americans are reassessing their energy resources. Cutting funding to projects that make this clean energy even more affordable is not prudent, and out of line with the priorities of clean-energy minded Americans.

Renewable energy is secure and domestic, and energy-efficient programs not only result in greater resource supplies but savings for families and businesses alike.

According to the Alliance to Save Energy, the President's climate plan to double domestic energy production by utilizing methods like renewable energy could save the average family household more than $1,000 every year on energy bills.

Investing in renewable energy will result in safer domestic energy, job creation in the clean energy sector, and lower heating and cooling bills across the country.

For these reasons and others, and in the best interest of our Nation's energy security, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I would ask you to spend money on finding research to see ways we can come up with renewable energy and improve the savings, and save about the future, save it and yet not cut too much from the nuclear program, which we already have funded higher than the President requested or last year.

I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, a compromise amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We've had these discussions. We've got enough money in nuclear weapons to destroy the world thousands and thousands and thousands of times. And I understand defense, but I also understand the future. And the future is energy self-reliance. And that comes from the Sun. It's not going to be taken out of the Earth. It's going to come from the solar energy that God has given us to harness and use for mankind.

So the amendment, in my opinion, is a sound amendment and budgetary use. But even more so--and it's getting off the path--the reality is the distinguished gentleman made his remarks and said there's nothing more important than our Defense Department. I submit to you that we're cutting $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health. That's my defense department and your defense department and everybody else's defense department. Because cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and AIDS, that's the enemy that's going to get each one of us. And we're cutting $1.6 from NIH, which is our defense department.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Bobby (Blue) Bland, a Memphis and American music and blues idol, passed away at the age of 83 on Sunday.

Bobby (Blue) Bland was born Robert Calvin Brooks in 1930, and in the forties he moved to Memphis. In 1949, he joined a group called the Beale Streeters, which was a loose-knit group and it included Johnny Ace, Rosco Gordon, Earl Forest, and B.B. King--giants. He later worked for Junior Parker and B.B. King, two other giants. Then he went on his own way and became one of the great blues singers of all time.

His four top singles were ``Turn on your Love Light,'' ``Call on Me,'' ``That's the Way Love is,'' and ``Ain't Nothing You Can Do.'' He had top 100 hits almost every year for 40 years. His songs were covered by the Grateful Dead, The Band, and Van Morrison. He influenced Otis Redding, Wilson Pickett, and the Allman Brothers. He has been in every music hall of fame you can think of, including the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the initial class of the Memphis Music Hall of Fame.

He served his country in the Army from 1952 to 1954. He is survived by his wife, Willie Mae, his son, Rodd, his daughter, Patrice, his four grandchildren, and by millions of disks and CDs that people will be loving forever.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 148th anniversary of the observance of Juneteenth in the United States. Even though the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln in September 1862, it was not until June 19, 1865, that Union Soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger granted freedom to the last slaves in Galveston, Texas. This year also marks the 20th annual Juneteenth Freedom and Heritage Festival in Memphis. To commemorate this day in our history and the contributions of many African-Americans to our nation, this year the festival has chosen the theme, ``Honoring African-American Medical Doctors.''

Over the course of history, there have been many obstacles in the path to success for African-Americans in many fields, and the medical field is no exception. In fact, the nation's first African-American doctor, Dr. James McCune Smith was barred from attending medical school in New York City, where he lived, so he attended medical school in Scotland and obtained his degree in 1837. He then returned to New York, set up a medical practice in lower Manhattan, and became the resident physician at an orphanage. In addition to his medical practice, Dr. Smith served as a schoolteacher, a prolific writer and a strong abolitionist. The bravery of Dr. Smith paved the way for more African- American doctors to climb the ranks to prominence.

Because Memphis is a medical center, the city has seen its own share of African-American doctors who have made a difference in the lives of their patients and left their respective marks on the medical community. Dr. Edward Reed was the first black general surgeon to set up practice in Memphis and to integrate the surgical staffs of Memphis hospitals during the 1960s. Dr. Lawrence Seymour was a pioneer in the fight against prostate cancer, developing several new treatments for the disease, including one that shrinks the prostate gland before surgery. Dr. Linkwood Williams moved to Memphis, after his tenure training many of the 450 pilots who served in the 332nd Fighter Group at Tuskegee University, and began an OB-GYN practice, becoming the first African-American OB-GYN in the city. Dr. Vasco Smith, a civil rights leader and the first African-American elected to the Shelby County Commission, also served the medical community as a well- respected dentist and an instrumental founder of the Regional Medical Center at Memphis. Dr. Ethelyn Williams-Neal worked to become one of the first black pediatricians in Memphis, and she continues to serve as a prominent pediatrician in the Memphis community.

Mr. Speaker, it is in the spirit of these great medical professionals that I ask my colleagues to join me in observing our nation's 148th anniversary of Juneteenth and the celebrations in Memphis. This is a time to reflect upon the end of slavery in America and to recognize the many contributions of African-American citizens. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, the Emancipation Proclamation ``came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan--as they are celebrating the 95th anniversary of the Republic Day on May 28.

The Republic Day commemorates the day Azerbaijan first declared independence from the Russian Empire on May 28, 1918. Though the independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan was ended by occupying Soviet forces in 1920, in its 2 years of independence Azerbaijan made important accomplishments on state-building, armed forces, education, their economy, and universal suffrage, from which it benefits today.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan restored its independence in 1991. Parliament adopted the Constitution Act on the Restoration of the State of Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan on October 18, 1991.

The last two decades of independence has not been without challenges. The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan was violated and the Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding regions of Azerbaijan have been occupied by neighboring Armenia. In 1993 the UN Security Council adopted four resolutions demanding complete, unconditional, and immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. I am happy that Azerbaijan is committed to peaceful resolution of the conflict with Armenia, and I support a swift, peaceful resolution to this conflict, as well.

Azerbaijan is a key global security partner for the United States. Azerbaijan has extended important over-flight clearances for U.S. and NATO flights to support ISAF and has regularly provided landing and refueling operations at its airports for U.S. and NATO forces. Also, Azerbaijan plays an important role in the Northern Distribution Network, a supply route to Afghanistan, by making available its ground and Caspian naval transportation facilities. Azerbaijan was also the first predominantly Muslim country to send troops to Iraq.

Azerbaijan has opened Caspian energy resources to development by U.S. companies and has emerged as a key player for global energy security. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project is the most successful project contributing to the development of the South Caucasus region and has become the main artery delivering Caspian Sea hydrocarbons to the U.S. and our partners in Europe. Notably, Azerbaijan also provides roughly 40% of Israel's oil consumption. Azerbaijan is considered a leading initiator of the Trans Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) which will open up the Southern Gas Corridor to Europe. As a co-chair of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, I congratulate the Republic of Azerbaijan on the Republic Day. I believe we will continue to work with them to advance our partnership which benefits both the US and Azerbaijan. I look forward to further collaboration between our two nations.

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

This amendment would require that TransCanada and any future owner-operator of the Keystone XL pipeline, if there be one, submit its oil spill response plan to the Governor of each State in which the pipeline operates.

I'm well aware that current law requires the Department of Transportation to maintain on file current copies of oil spill response plans and provide any person a copy of that plan. However, those copies are allowed by law to exclude certain information like specific response resources, tactical resource deployment plans, and information on worst-case scenario discharges.

I understand there are concerns about broad distribution of these plans and this proprietary information, but those concerns should not apply to Governors of the States--people like Mary Fallin and Nathan Deal, who many of us have served with--States that this very pipeline would run through. These States have the right to evaluate oil spill response plans in detail, integrate it into their respective emergency management systems, and then provide the necessary resources for appropriate emergency response plans. Reliance upon some redacted plan they would receive from the Federal Government is not adequate. People's lives and livelihoods are at stake, and locals work together on these situations.

Nor should those Governors be expected to wait until a spill has occurred when they are already in the process of sending first responders into harm's way to receive a copy of the full plan from TransCanada, which is, by law, the only time the company is required to share that unredacted version with the State government.

South Dakota was wise enough to realize the problems with these regulations. The State enacted legislation to mandate receipt of the plan prior to operation of the pipeline. The other States should not have to jump through any hoops just to obtain the information they need in order to provide appropriate emergency response to dangerous situations to protect their citizenry.

When I offered this amendment in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, my esteemed colleague, the Honorable Chairman Shuster, recognized the need to balance access to these response plans with the need to protect sensitive information from becoming public, and I think this amendment strikes that proper balance by limiting access to the Governors. He offered to work with me on the issue on a future appropriation bill, and I appreciate that kind offer. While I look forward to that partnership, and I commend the chairman for his work to address the issue on the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011, this amendment would improve this Keystone pipeline situation today. We can't wait for some possible future legislation when the likelihood of a spill and the risk to public safety is so great now.

Potential effects of a Keystone XL spill could be devastating. The truth of the matter is that this pipeline is unprecedented, it's dangerous, and there will be spills. Refraining from arming our States with readily available information in order to respond adequately and safely would not be responsible.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this time. This issue is important, and it demonstrates Congress's respect for Governors and State governments and the men and women who risk their lives to protect us every day, the first responders. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I ask that we unanimously support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.