Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a just and wise servant of the people, an even-handed and merciful adjudicator of the law, and a humble and decent man, Judge J.C. McLin. He lost his battle with pancreatic cancer on Sunday, September 4, 2011. Judge McLin was born in Trenton, Tennessee to Reverend Henry McLin and Louise Doaks McLin. After graduating from Rosenwald High School, he attended and graduated from Lane College. He received a master's degree in Education from University of Tennessee at Martin and a law degree from University of Tennessee College of Law. He was commissioned as a First Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps and was honorably discharged in 1975.

Judge McLin's selfless commitment to our community has made a lasting impact on the lives he touched. After working as an attorney for 25 years, including nine years in private practice, 19 years as a prosecutor and a staff attorney at Memphis Area Legal Services, he was elected to the Shelby County Criminal Court in 2000 where he presided as a judge. In 2004, he was appointed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals by Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, only the second African American to hold a seat on that bench. Judge McLin was noted for his gracious, calm and efficient approach to work. He was also regarded as a fair and hard working judge who served on the bench with great dignity and integrity.

Judge McLin was a faithful member of Mt. Pisgah Missionary Baptist Church, where he served as an associate minister. He supported the work of local organizer Stevie Moore to fight youth violence and he founded the Information, Assistance, and Monitoring program which gives criminal offenders a chance to rehabilitate themselves. He served on the board of the Memphis Second Chance Program which aims to help ex- offenders find a job. He leaves behind a legacy of service and faith that will continue to resonate in the Memphis community for many years to come.

Judge McLin was 64 years of age. He is survived by his beloved wife of 42 years, Mollie Jenkins McLin; his sons, Jason and Thebe; his daughter, Monette; his mother, Louise; two sisters, Shirley Drake and Patsy Smith; and a wealth of other family, friends and colleagues who will cherish his memory. His was a life well-lived.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my support for the appointment of General Wesley K. Clark, Sr. as the special envoy to resolve the crisis in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. As one of the most highly decorated officers in the history of our nation and an authority in foreign policy as demonstrated by his ability to resolve the crisis in the Balkans while serving as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1007-2000, I encourage Secretary Clinton to seriously consider General Clark for this position.

Camp Ashraf is home to 3,400 members of the principal Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). There are 1,000 women among the residents, as well as children. The Iraqi Government has on two occasions attacked the unarmed residents of Camp Ashraf, killing dozens and injuring hundreds of defenseless men and women.

In a press conference on July 30, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki stated that western countries should not provide refuge to the residents. He has already stated that he intends to expel, and has threatened to arrest Camp Ashraf residents by the end of the year. If Ashraf residents are left at the mercy of Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki, who has repeatedly acted at the behest of Tehran, the residents could be killed, tortured or even sent to Iran where they would surely be murdered.

We need to play a very active role to ensure that no other resident of Camp Ashraf is subjected to massacre, given that we signed an agreement with every resident of Camp Ashraf in 2004 to protect them until their final disposition and that the United States recognized them as ``protected persons.''

I strongly endorse the appointment of a special envoy to resolve the looming humanitarian catastrophe in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. The envoy should not only have notable credentials and experience, but should also have the trust of all parties including the residents of Ashraf, European countries and the United Nations.

General Wesley Clark has proven himself to be a diplomat of the highest order as well as an outstanding military commander and strategist. General Clark graduated first in his class from West Point. He completed degrees in philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford University where he earned both his B.A. and M.A. degrees as a Rhodes Scholar.

In 38 years of service in the United States Army, he commanded at the battalion, brigade and division levels. He served in a number of significant staff positions including being appointed as the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Clark rose to the rank of four-star general as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander of Europe and led forces to victory in Operation Allied Force where 1.5 million Albanians were saved from ethnic cleansing.

His awards include the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards), Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, honorary knighthoods from the British and Dutch governments, Commander of the Legion of Honor by the French government and numerous other awards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to stand with me in urging Secretary Clinton to consider General Wesley Clark to lead a special envoy to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. It is in the best interest of the residents of Camp Ashraf that this effort be led by someone such as General Clark who has military experience and demonstrated successful conflict resolution.

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

It's been a pleasure working with Chairman Smith, who yields the time, never as much as I may consume, but yields the time, which I'm always appreciative of, and we've worked in a bipartisan manner on this, and I appreciate his working with me on that.

The Federal administrative law and rulemaking processes are among the most important ways by which our Nation implements public policy. Each year, agencies issue regulations to ensure that the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the cars we drive are safe. Although regulations play a critical role in virtually every aspect of our daily lives, there is only one independent, nonpartisan Federal entity that Congress can rely on to ensure that these regulations work as intended. The Administrative Conference of the United States, known as ACUS, is that critical entity.

First established by President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the Conference is a nonpartisan, public-private resource that provides invaluable guidance to Congress about how to improve the administrative and regulatory processes. ACUS is charged with making recommendations for the improvement of administrative agencies and their procedures, particularly with respect to efficiency and fairness. Over the years, the Conference has helped agencies implement many cost-saving procedures and made numerous recommendations to eliminate excessive litigation costs and long delays.

Just one agency alone, the Social Security Administration, estimates that the Conference's recommendations to change that agency's appeals process yielded approximately $85 million in savings. Another recommendation by the Conference, namely, that agencies use alternative dispute resolution methods to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation, resulted in more than $100 million in savings government- wide. Several other ACUS recommendations have greatly increased the efficiency of other administrative procedures by eliminating duplicative hearings and streamlining appeals from agency action, thereby also resulting in cost savings in the millions of dollars.

In what is truly a rare and historic example of agreement, Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia have jointly testified before our committee in strong support of the Conference, not once but on two occasions, and I must say I enjoyed both of

their comments and their friendship. Justice Breyer extolled the ``huge'' savings to the public resulting from the Conference's recommendations, while Justice Scalia likewise agreed that ACUS is ``an enormous bargain.'' Perhaps most importantly, ACUS can play a major role in helping agencies become even more efficient and effective, especially given the present budgetary constraints.

As reported by the Judiciary Committee, H.R. 2480, the Administrative Conference of the United States Reauthorization Act of 2011, authorizes $2.9 million to be appropriated to the Conference for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2014. With this modest reauthorization, we will ensure that the Conference will continue to return to American taxpayers many multiples of that investment in the form of recommendations that will make Federal agencies more effective.

H.R. 2480 reflects a long history of bipartisan support for ACUS. Once again, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, a gentleman and a scholar, and the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, a gentleman and a scholar as well, for working with me on this legislation, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to secure final passage of H.R. 2480 by the other body. Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have voted twice to raise the debt ceiling. In May, I voted with about 90 other people for a clear debt ceiling raise. I voted this past weekend for Leader Reid's program, which had cuts.

But I can't vote for this program because the first series of cuts we know, the second series of cuts we don't know. I fear it's a Trojan horse. And if you look inside that Trojan horse it's Scylla and Charybdis inside, the whirlpools and the shoals. And that's an odyssey and journey that this country should not have to traverse.

This country has been taken to this point by a group of ideologues that don't like government, want to reduce it, are reducing it, want to hurt employment figures to hurt the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, and I don't want to hurt him.

Justice Louis Brandeis said, ``The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.'' Justice Brandeis is with us today.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes art imitates life. Sometimes life imitates art. I think today life is imitating art.

I often reflect on motion pictures and learn from them. When I came up here, it was ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.''

But currently, watching this, I have been thinking about ``Blazing Saddles.'' Remember Mel Brooks and Richard Pryor, they did a movie. They had a city called Rock Ridge, an all-white city, lawless, problems. The governor appointed a handsome, sharp, young, black man to be the sheriff, the first black sheriff ever in Rock Ridge.

He went there and he wanted the townsfolk to help him prepare to beat off the thugs and have a better city. They didn't want to join him. He said, ``You'd do it for Randolph Scott.'' They would have done it for Randolph Scott, and realizing that, they helped Cleavon Little, the sheriff.

The Republicans, well, they'd do it for George Bush, and they did it for George Bush a lot. Mr. Speaker, life imitates art.

I appreciate the time.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the reputation of this United States House of Representatives and Congress is at a low ebb because of the fact that we haven't acted prior to this date, the fact that the reputation of the United States of America is on the line, and we're being talked about at the same level as the economies of Spain and Greece and Ireland and Portugal. This should never have happened. I'm embarrassed as I see the greatest power on Earth and the country that's been the greatest country on Earth through my entire life possibly diminish because of the actions of the other side and not getting this debt ceiling resolved.

The ratings of the United States will go down. That will cause interest rates to go up, and it will cause us to lose jobs. And to extend this for just 6 months--which is what is happening--means the same Kabuki theater will take place again in 6 months. The American public doesn't want to see it. Moody's doesn't want to see it. Standard and Poor's doesn't want to see it. The markets don't want to see it. The world doesn't want to see it. When I was in Europe with the Bundestag in Germany, they almost laughed at us, and they said, You are like Greece and Ireland and Portugal. And that should not happen. It should not have happened in this country and while we're in charge.

So I would ask this United States Congress, Mr. Speaker, to have a 2- year extension, enough money to lift this ceiling to where this President won't have to deal with it again and the next President can deal with it. And if it is, as I hope, President Obama, the Republicans won't have to work to see that he is not reelected because he will be term-limited, so they can work at ease. And if it's a Republican, they can even have more ease. But let's be fair and let's extend this for 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, it's a difficult time to talk because Ms. Schakowsky has said just about everything that I was planning to say. She said it extremely well and synopsized the issue.

It basically comes down to fairness and justice for the American people. And the President, who has been burdened with problems caused by the Republican Congress and the Bush years, wars in Iraq, wars in Afghanistan not paid for, prescription drug bill not paid for, and Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans which have caused most of the deficit and the problem with the debt ceiling, and now we're not calling on them to make some sacrifice and to pay for it.

Most everybody in America knows about dieting. Most of us are a little overweight. Michelle Obama will tell you that any day. We need to watch our weight. But when you go to diet, you've got to reduce your calories and you've got to exercise some more. Spend some calories, reduce some calories. That's the way you diet. It's the same thing with the budget.

If you had a problem at home with your budget, kind of having a problem, well, maybe you think, I won't take that vacation and go to Miami Beach and stay in that three-star hotel. I'll go to Fort Walton and stay in a two-star hotel. And maybe I'll get another job or work some more overtime. You increase your income, you decrease your spending, and you get it together.

This Congress, though, has got the problem because of dealing with this, and the debt ceiling's independent of all of it. Many Members of Congress on the Republican side have pledged not to raise revenue. Well, you've got to do both. You've got to cut some things, and you cut some things that don't decrease your ability to increase jobs later on or increase jobs now, and you increase revenue at the same time. You have to do both.

Some of the Republicans have pledged never to do revenue. Well, that means they've got one arm tied behind their backs--never increase revenue.

You come to the table and you try to get a bargain. You negotiate in politics. You've got to have both hands at the table, one give and one take. Both sides have to come, open palms, friendship, no guns. Here we are.

But they've got one hand tied behind their backs. That's the problem we've got. So we're not being able to negotiate because one side comes ill-equipped, unprepared, incapable.

Last week we had a new Member here from California (Ms. Hahn), and the Speaker read to her and she repeated the oath of office: I pledge to support, I swear I will support, the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

We've got a domestic enemy right now, and it's the idea that we're not going to pay our debts: The full faith and credit of the United States goes by, interest rates go up, jobs go down, credit card rates go up, home mortgage rates go up, 401(k)s go down, stock market drops 10 percent. Yet we're not doing it. We're considering a pledge to some third-party person that said, No new revenue, arm behind my back, instead of, I will support the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So that's the problem we've got.

I had a town hall last night on the telephone. My constituents can't understand why we have the problem. I tried to explain it to them. They're concerned about their Social Security checks coming or their veterans check coming. They could be cut off if we don't get this done and we don't have money to pay our debts.

People living simply on Social Security are endangered, and yet millionaires and billionaires go on. Hedge fund guys, they earn billions of dollars--millions at least, billions for some--pay 15 percent, something called carried interest on their income, 15 percent. But the average person out there is paying 25, 26, 34 at the most; 15 percent for the richest guys in New York spending money outrageously and the ones that almost brought this economy down.

Somebody asked me, Is this thing going to pass?

I don't know. But I'll tell you this: In my life, and I hope nobody out here listening has had that situation, Mr. Speaker, I've had kidney stones. They're easier to pass than this.

Mr. Speaker, I've got a pain in my side.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Welch-Cohen amendment. Our simple, not a gutting, amendment--that's totally wrong-- noncontroversial amendment, states an important fact that was not mentioned in the findings section. I'm disappointed that this stilted legislation fails to mention any of the risks associated with the pipeline, such as the critical fact that Keystone XL would run through the world's largest fresh water aquifer, the Ogallala, which provides 30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in the United States and drinking water for millions of Americans. This fact is an essential aspect of the pipeline that must be considered by the State Department and the American public before granting a determination of national interest.

Our amendment also states the results of the only independent assessment of the worst-case spills for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a report that indicates that TransCanada has greatly understated the pipeline's risks.

Perhaps the most important component of the report is the discovery that even a small undetected leak from an underground rupture of the pipeline in the Nebraska Sand Hills could pollute almost 5 billion gallons of groundwater, enough oil to pose serious health threats to anyone using this aquifer for drinking water or agricultural purposes; and a leak of this magnitude is certainly possible given that the Keystone XL's real-time leak detection system does not register spills less than, get this, 700,000 gallons a day. They'll have no knowledge of it.

What is even more disconcerting is that according to Cynthia Quarterman, the administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the U.S. pipeline safety regulations were not written to address the unique risks of piping tar sand, the worst oil one could imagine. Additionally, Administrator Quarterman noted that her agency, the government's pipeline safety experts, has not been included in the review of Keystone XL and has never studied the risks of piping tar sands.

As we consider building a dangerous tar sands pipeline through our Nation's most important aquifer, it is critical the decision be based on an accurate depiction of the pipeline's risks and not just rosy, overly optimistic descriptions of its projected benefits. This is why the Sierra League and the National Resource Defense Council are so interested, as is the American public in these findings.

I urge support for the Welch-Cohen amendment.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As the State Department and the U.S. public consider whether the proposed Keystone XL tar stands pipeline is in the national interest, it is critical that the most accurate information be made available. That's why I have offered an amendment to this legislation that eliminates a rhetorical, baseless safely claim and replaces it with a substantiated factual statement.

TransCanada is engaged in a high-stakes public relations campaign to brand the Keystone XL pipeline as safe and their company as responsible operators. I'm sure that BP Oil said the same thing about Deepwater. But that wasn't true. Just because they say it doesn't make it true. It is one thing for a foreign oil company to employ misleading rhetoric, but it's not the place of the House of Representatives to endorse these mistruths.

It only requires a brief objective glance at the safety record to realize that TransCanada's meritorious safety claims do not withstand even the slightest scrutiny. When selling Keystone--that's not Keystone XL, which we're looking at; Keystone, another pipeline--to the U.S., TransCanada claimed the pipeline was ``state-of-the-art,'' and even went as far as dubbing it the ``safest pipeline ever built.'' Well, we're in trouble.

After 1 disastrous year of operation, TransCanada's rosy claims are not reflective of the reality that exists.

In less than 12 months of operation, the so-called ``safest pipeline ever built'' has spilled 12 times in the United States--the dirty dozen--and 21 times in Canada. Following that 12th domestic spill, the Department of Transportation shut down pipeline operations because Keystone was deemed ``a threat to life, property and the environment.''

Since Keystone is TransCanada's first wholly owned pipeline in the United States, TransCanada's safety record is off to a pretty bad start. TransCanada's misleading safety claim extends far beyond their simple rhetoric. Here are three of the most egregious claims for Keystone XL:

Number one: TransCanada claims that, if and when the Keystone XL pipeline has a leak, it will shut down the pipeline almost instantly.

Unfortunately, spills on the Keystone pipeline have demonstrated that TransCanada's theoretical response is far better than their actual response. In May, when Keystone spilled 21,000 gallons, it took TransCanada 44 minutes to shut down the pipeline after the spill. It would have taken even longer had it not been for a landowner who called in the spill, which shot a six-story-high gusher of toxic oil into the air. You'd have thought it was Texas.

Number two: TransCanada suggests there is little risk of a spill on the Keystone XL pipeline.

However, the only independent assessment of the worst case spills for Keystone XL indicates that TransCanada has greatly understated the severity and frequency of significant spills, an estimate that is more than 800 percent lower than what would likely occur.

Over the last few weeks, we have all witnessed the irreparable damage caused by the 40,000-gallon Silvertip pipeline spill in the Yellowstone River. Now try to imagine how devastating a 6.95 million-, almost a 7 million, gallon spill of more toxic oil would be on the Yellowstone River. A spill of this magnitude and devastation is possible if we approve the Keystone XL.

Number three: TransCanada claims that Keystone XL would be built of thicker steel and operate at lower than allowed pressures.

But major segments of Keystone XL would be made of thinner steel than Exxon Mobil's failed Silvertip pipeline. So while Keystone XL would operate at lower than allowed pressures, it would still operate at nearly twice the pressure of the Silvertip. Additionally, Keystone XL would be transporting tar sands, a substance which is far more corrosive and volatile than conventional oil.

Even a cursory review of TransCanada's safety claims reveals a web of exaggerations, understatements and lies that have been carefully woven together to manufacture an image of safety and responsibility.

It is critical that the American people have an accurate depiction of the dangers of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Congress must exercise more scrutiny and not take TransCanada's manufactured rhetoric at face value. We cannot afford to let TransCanada once again dupe us into permitting an even more dangerous pipeline, for as they say, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' Somebody from Texas tried to say that once, but we know the statement.

I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding time.

I rise in support of the Murphy-Cohen-Welch amendment. This amendment sheds light on the oil industry's attempt to pressure the U.S. into approving Keystone XL by threatening to export tar sands to China if we do not approve the pipeline.

As Mr. Murphy has well stated, Canada has already said themselves they can't get that oil out of Canada without this pipeline, that they can't get it to China unless they build a pipeline. They want to build a pipeline through America over one of our most important aquifers-- threatening our environment and our drinking water so that Canada can get some oil to possibly go to China.

Canada cannot get it to China without going through the United States, and it makes no sense. The fact is this amendment, like the previous amendments, is just simply putting the facts, the truth, into this particular paper.

There is nothing wrong with these. Nobody disputes the facts. In fact, the gentleman agreed on the previous amendment that there had been a dozen leaks of the Keystone pipeline. He mentioned that some of them were very small. The average one is a thousand barrels.

So if the Keystone pipeline, which was the safest in the world, was not safe, what's wrong with mentioning it in the findings?

And the same thing here. What they said about China is just not true. The only feasible route to export tar sand to China is the Keystone XL. And that's what they're looking to do, because it's not going to affect the United States' use of oil, oil as a commodity that the Canadians want to sell, and they're not going to give it to us any cheaper than they're going to give it to anybody else. They want to make money, but they've got opposition in their own country as well.

We need to look out for the American people and not have some situation where maybe because Canada is helping us with oil in the Middle East that we're helping them with oil through our Midwest. America's Midwest is too important to sacrifice to some misguided adventure that Canada got into with us and the Mideast all because of oil.

So I would support the Murphy-Cohen-Welch amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republican slash-and-burn politics have not created a single job for hardworking Americans and Republicans have not presented a bill on jobs in this Congress. The fact is we need jobs and we need innovative jobs, and the Democrats have proposed a jobs plan that emphasizes innovation.

We had an opportunity last week to have more investment in solar-- less in fossil fuels--solar green jobs that are innovative, create more jobs and protect us in the future so we don't have to spend money on defense to protect those lines that bring us oil from the Middle East, yet we didn't do it.

We need to invest in education, and the Democrats have tried to do that. But the Republicans want to cut Pell Grants and cut workforce investment opportunities. We need to have an educated workforce, and we need to have creative ways to create jobs and not just be slaving to Big Oil and Wall Street.

Jobs is our most important business here. And while I speak of jobs, we have one job the American public wants us to do, and that is prevent a default on our debt and embarrass the United States and wreck the world's economy. That's more important than any pledge, Mr. Speaker, that anybody has taken. Don't default.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. I appreciate your yielding, and I appreciate Congresswoman Fudge for bringing this issue to the floor.

We previously heard from other Congresspeople and particularly the distinguished Congressman John Lewis, who was a civil rights hero in the 60s and risked his life, as others did, and gave their lives for the right to vote.

We are experiencing today, after International Nelson Mandela Day, yesterday was Nelson Mandela's 91st birthday. Next month we'll dedicate a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King on the Mall. When you think about Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela and John Lewis, you've got to think about voting rights and how far the Nation and the world have come in the last 45 years and how long it took to get there.

And to think that there are impediments being placed in the way of people to vote, whether intentional or not, I believe those impediments are being placed there intentionally to dissuade African Americans and Democratic-leaning groups from voting in the 2012 election, Rovian tactics to stop President Obama from being re-elected and from the public to pick Democratic Representatives to switch the priorities of this House to those that would be more reflective of the middle class and people who are yearning for opportunity.

But whether they're intentional or not, if they have an effect that is harmful to voting rights, just like other laws, if they have an effect in practice, they are just as harmful and just as wrong as if they were intended. And there is no question that these types of impediments to require people to get voter IDs, when 25 percent of African Americans in this country don't have that type of ID and 8 percent of Caucasians are in the same limitation of not having that type of ID, it's obvious that African Americans and students and others are the ones that are designed to be targeted by these laws.

In my State of Tennessee that passed such a law, to get a photo ID is not easy. I went myself to get a driver's license with a photo ID. It took 1 hour and 20 minutes, constantly standing in line, no place to sit. It was not easy and people will not be able to do it. It will be an impediment to them and limit their opportunity to vote. It's wrong.

I would like to thank Ms. Lee and Congresswoman Fudge for bringing this to the American public's attention.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to join with my colleagues on the House floor to oppose the Majority's efforts to cut funding for high- speed rail. As the Congressman from Memphis, a city that was damaged by historic floods this spring and a city in much need of disaster relief, I applaud the Majority for proposing more than one billion dollars in relief. However, I am disappointed that the Majority has decided to use high-speed rail funding to offset the cost.

I am disturbed by the Majority's decision to reach across jurisdictions and raid funding from the transportation sector, a sector in desperate need of investment. If an offset must be used then it should be from funds within the Energy and Water account. I also find it alarming that the Majority is cutting funds for high-speed rail, a program that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to fund relief for disasters that were exacerbated by climate

change. By cutting this funding, we are increasing our greenhouse gas emissions and only ensuring that we will need exponentially more disaster relief in the future.

The United States needs high-speed rail--it is vital to the mobility of our people and to our economic competitiveness. Creating a nation- wide high-speed rail system would be a major economic catalyst that would create thousands of jobs, save billions in congestion reduction, curb our reliance on fossil fuels, reduce harmful pollution, and literally, save lives. Recognizing its enormous benefits, nations across the world are investing billions in high-speed rail and are creating systems that surpass existing U.S. rail service in speed, convenience, reliability, level of service, and comfort.

My Democratic colleagues and I understand the importance of high- speed rail and are fighting for vital funding. President Obama also understands the importance of investing in passenger rail and has set the ambitious goal of providing 80 percent of Americans with convenient access to a passenger rail system within 25 years. To reach this goal, the President has proposed $53 billion over six years to fund the development of high-speed rail and other passenger rail programs as part of an integrated national strategy. I support the President's goal, an important goal that will never come to fruition if the Majority continues to cut high-speed rail funding.

Building a nationwide high-speed rail system is the 21st century equivalent of constructing the national interstate highway system, a project that has transformed the Nation. To create a nationwide rail system, the government is going to need to dramatically increase its rail sector spending. The discrepancy in historical Federal investment between highways, aviation, and intercity passenger rail is staggering. Between 1958 and 2008, we invested nearly $1.3 trillion in our Nation's highways and over $473 billion in aviation. Federal investment in passenger rail pales in comparison: we invested only $53 billion in passenger rail from 1971 to 2008.

The American people recognize the absence of high-speed rail in the American transportation sector and are clamoring for it. Not a day goes by that I am not asked by a constituent about the prospects of bringing high-speed rail to Memphis. And Memphis is now closer than ever to joining the high-speed rail network, since a study I fought to authorize that is examining the feasibility of connecting Memphis to the South Central Corridor is nearing completion. But this important rail line will only be built if the Majority recognizes the obvious value of high-speed rail and transitions from eliminating all funding for high-speed rail development to fighting for additional funding.

Having suffered through historic floods in Memphis this spring, I understand as well as any other member of this body how critical one billion dollars in disaster relief is. But I implore the Majority not to offset disaster relief with high-speed rail funding. We should not be forced to choose between leveraging our Nation's prosperity and paying for essential disaster relief.

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

Mr. Chairman, our Nation is at an energy crossroads. Either we can further increase our addiction to fossil fuels and use advanced technologies to suck out every last drop of oil, coal, and natural gas that exists underneath the Earth's surface, no matter what the economic or environmental cost, or we can decide to break our addiction to fossil fuels by investing in clean, renewable energy sources that have the capacity to power our Nation forever.

The majority's decision to cut funding for renewable energy programs and increase spending on fossil fuels makes it clear that they haven't quite gotten off their addiction to dirty energy, but this amendment offers them an opportunity do so. Their decision is shortsighted, will endanger American prosperity, and threaten our economic viability.

To help rectify this situation, this amendment's offered to cut $32 million from the Fossil Energy Research and Development account and increase the Solar Energy program by $16 million, to give my friends on the other side an opportunity to let the Sun shine in and join with God's wonderful source of energy. My amendment has a net impact of zero on the budget authority and does not increase 2012 outlays.

Despite overwhelming evidence that the U.S. needs to invest more in solar and spend less on fossil fuels, the majority has decided to reduce funding for solar research and development by 37 percent. This severe cut is unacceptable and especially egregious since the majority has allocated an additional $32 million to the Fossil Fuels account, a 7 percent increase.

This amendment that I have offered seeks to create some parity to 2011 funding by cutting the Fossil Fuels account back to its 2011 level and increasing the Solar account by 10 percent. Solar is the future and fossil fuels aren't.

If the majority wants to fulfill their commitment to create jobs and increase American energy security, then they need to start seriously investing in solar. Recent studies have demonstrated investments in solar can create three times as many jobs as funding for traditional fossil fuels. And if the government decided to invest $1 million in solar development, that investment would create at least 17 jobs. But that same million dollars in fossil fuels would create but five jobs. And jobs is what the American public is interested in.

The 17 jobs created would be high-paying jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, the kind of jobs that once were the backbone of our Nation and the jobs that the American

people are clamoring for, giving the middle class an opportunity to have jobs and participate in the American economy.

I have witnessed the power of solar in my own community to create jobs, spur economic development, and transform the lives of everyday Americans. As a result of previous Federal solar investments, Sharp Solar, which is located in my district, is a burgeoning solar industry and operates a manufacturing facility that employs nearly 500 Memphians. Additional Federal investments in solar will create thousands of new jobs in my district and millions of new jobs across the country, some of which will be in New Jersey.

Not only is solar a superior job creator, but it's also a far better long-term investment. Fossil fuel proponents may not publicly admit it, but renewable energy will power the future. So establishing dominance in this sector is critical to our national energy security and economic security. Supplies of fossil fuels are diminishing rapidly, and their nonrenewable nature makes them a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

Recognizing the critical role renewable energy technologies like solar will have, nations across the world are making massive investments in clean technology so they can establish themselves as leaders and exporters of the future's energy. I recently visited Germany, and solar is everywhere. The Germans are investing and supplying many of their buildings with solar, and they are a leader, just as China is. But America's being left behind.

As is demonstrated by this appropriations bill, the U.S. is not making the requisite investments in solar to compete in the emerging global marketplace. Unless the majority decides to change course and support the efforts that we've made here to make unprecedented investments in renewables, the United States will transition from importing oil from the Middle East to importing clean energy technologies from China and Europe, not what we should be aiming for.

My $16 million amendment alone will not determine the course of America's energy future, because we need to be investing billions in solar energy to keep up with the Chinese, the Germans, and other countries, but this zero cost amendment will create jobs and push America a little further down the road to a clean energy economy. The amendment offers a clear signal to the American people and the world the United States is serious about ending its addiction to fossil fuels and becoming a world leader in the renewable energy sector.

We shouldn't just orbit around the Sun; we should harness its energy and use it to supply energy for this planet. The Sun is there for a purpose other than just an anchor.

I urge support for this important amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently cast a ``yea'' vote on rollcall No. 537, as part of the consideration of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I would like to change my vote on the amendment to ``nay.''

When I cast my vote, I was under the impression that this amendment was a measure solely designed to reduce the federal deficit. However, after casting my vote I learned that this deceptive policy amendment specifically zeroes out money for climate change projects within the Corps' Operations and Maintenance Program. I oppose this amendment as I believe that the Corps and the entire federal government need to work quickly to reduce carbon emissions and to adapt infrastructure so it is capable of withstanding the impacts of climate change. I also oppose the amendment because I believe that sneaking deceptive policy riders into appropriations legislation is not the proper way to create policy and govern this great nation.

I have the privilege of representing Memphis, Tennessee, which was inundated this year with historic floods. There is no doubt in my mind that these floods were exacerbated by climate change which caused record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest that resulted in the record flooding. As bad as these floods were, the impacts would have been magnitudes worse had it not been for the Army Corps of Engineers' tremendous work to control the flood. I strongly support the Army Corps and appreciate their efforts to safeguard the American people and economy.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation and our world is at an economic crossroads, with the debt ceiling needing to be raised by the 2nd of August. Fortunately, I think some common sense appears to be coming from the Senate from Senator Mitch McConnell: the idea of surrendering but claiming victory, more noble than admitting defeat, and much more noble than putting this Nation and the world on an economic precipice all based upon the resistance of putting tax increases on the millionaires and billionaires in this Nation.

People who have benefited and haven't hurt one iota are being told by the Republicans that they will not agree to a compromise if it causes an increase in taxes for the millionaires and billionaires, those tax breaks from the Bush years that helped cause this debt problem and caused the recession.

So I praise Senator McConnell for claiming victory and surrendering in a noble way and keeping our economy. Hopefully, this project will be successful and save us from having a catastrophic Wall Street and bond market collapse.

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

Mr. Chairman, while on this 4th of July most Americans were partaking in American pastimes like barbecuing and watching ball games, Montanans were immersed in a new American tradition, unfortunately, cleaning up an oil spill. In this case, Montanans were working, and are still working, feverishly to clean up a 40,000 gallon leak from ExxonMobil's Silvertip pipeline, a spill that's having a devastating impact on the residents, economy, and environment in the State of Montana.

As written, this legislation opens the door for more destructive events like the Yellowstone spill. This is why I proposed a simple, zero-cost amendment that will resolve this issue and continue protecting the American people, its environment, our economy, our water system from the harmful effects of pipeline spills.

The investigation into the Yellowstone spill has made it clear that the

spill occurred because the pipeline was not buried deep enough below the streambed. Having only been buried 5 feet below the river, years of the Yellowstone River's powerful flow removed much of the sediment covering the pipeline to the point where the pipeline was directly exposed. Once exposed, the pipeline was weakened by the elements rapidly moving down the Yellowstone River.

In order to bury a pipeline beneath a streambed, the company building the pipeline often has to rely upon and apply to the Corps of Engineers for a permit to dredge and fill. While the Corps has the authority to issue the permit, EPA has the ability to exercise oversight and ensure that the pipeline is sited safely and buried appropriately. This oversight authority is an effective, nonburdensome safety feature of the permitting process that serves as a backstop to Federal and State regulators and protects the health and safety of the American people.

All this amendment does is ensure that this bill does not prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from exercising this authority. It does not create a new permitting requirement or process. Historically, the siting of pipelines has not been an issue where the Federal Government has exercised much oversight. And this amendment does not call for enhanced oversight, create a new process, or require anything more from pipeline owners or builders. Rather, it simply preserves the existing right of the Environmental Protection Agency to exercise oversight in egregious cases.

Every piece of oil infrastructure, whether it's a pipeline or a drill rig, has backup safety features that are critical to ensure the safe operation of the infrastructure. Those safety backups, like the dead man switch on a drill rig, only function when the first set of safety features fail. The EPA's oversight of the Corps' dredge and fill permits for pipelines is just like the dead man's switch on an oil rig. It is only there as a backup protection in case the Corps might fail.

And if the oil industry uses layer upon layer of backup safety systems, why should the Federal Government not do the same? We are the ultimate protector of the water of our people. With the demand for oil in the United States increasing, more and more pipelines are being proposed. Many of these pipelines will cross economically critical, environmentally sensitive bodies of water like the Yellowstone River. Significant pipeline spills like the million gallon Enbridge pipeline spill last year in Michigan are serious events that have real implications for real people. Just ask the citizens of Kalamazoo, Michigan, who almost a year later are recovering from that spill.

In order to avoid similar tragedies in the future, the Federal Government needs to retain the existing protections built into the permitting process. This amendment does that by just maintaining EPA's existing authority to protect the American people and ensure their waters are not contaminated.

I urge passage of this important safety amendment, which will ensure that our Nation's pipelines are as consistent and as safe and reliable as Old Faithful, which resides in Yellowstone Park and whose river is being threatened, and I ask for support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment.