Charles Dent

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 240, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which Judge Carter, Mr. Price, myself, and others helped draft in the Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Homeland Security. This bill, despite what you may have heard, is a product of bipartisan compromise. It provides $47.8 billion to fund the agencies of the Department of Homeland Security through fiscal year 2015. It includes $7 billion for emergency disaster relief to assist those suffering the effects of severe winter snowstorms that have hit the northern United States; wildfires that have ravaged the West; floods; tornadoes; and other natural disasters. The bill also provides $213 million for OCO, or the Overseas Contingency Operations of the Coast Guard, as they continue to play a vital role in the support of our military abroad. In our deliberations on this bill, the committee took very seriously the crisis that has unfolded on our southwestern border as we experience the surge of unaccompanied minors, primarily from the Central American countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. It is estimated that nearly 70,000 unaccompanied children entered illegally in 2014 alone. The bill also allows certain FEMA grants to be used to reimburse State and local governments for the excessive costs associated with humanely detaining and processing these unaccompanied minors. In response to the influx of families that have crossed the southwest border, it allocates an additional $362 million for detention capability and capacity, including 3,732 new family detention beds. This legislation fully funds CBP, or Customs and Border Protection, and its 21,370 agents who provide not only security at our northern and southern borders, but also at our many ports of entry where goods come and go from all over the world. In light of the recent security incidents at the White House, the bill includes funding to improve security at the White House and Vice President's residence through additional fiscal infrastructure and resources such as tactical canine units. It also direct resources for the Secret Service to begin preparations for the Presidential candidate protection ahead of the 2016 Presidential election. We have all seen the recent events in the news that demonstrate the importance of being proactive on security in the cyber realm. Just yesterday, we saw social media accounts that the U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, was hacked by ISIS or their sympathizers. Last month, a major cyberattack allegedly perpetrated by North Korea compromised sensitive data belonging to the Sony Corporation. This legislation provides an increase in funding for the National Protection and Programs Directorate to support infrastructure protection, information security, and cybersecurity. We cannot afford to take a passive approach to protecting critical network communications. This bill also funds construction of the National Bio and Agro- Defense Facility to ensure the security of our Nation's food supply, something I think all too often we have taken for granted. This facility will strengthen our Nation's capability to conduct research and develop vaccines and other countermeasures to prepare and respond against diseases that could seriously threaten our crops and livestock. Finally, this fiscally responsible appropriations bill reduces the administration overhead costs of the Department of Homeland Security by $6 million below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Carter, Mr. Price, and the staff of both sides of the aisle that worked really hard to get this legislation to the point where it is. The underlying bill is a good bill. Notwithstanding any of the amendments that are going to be considered tomorrow, this bill should be supported on its merits, and it has a strong bipartisan vote. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my thoughts and, frankly, some concerns about the President's proposal that we will vote on today to train and arm the Free Syrian Army forces to fight ISIL. We are sort of in a ``damned if you do, damned if you don't'' situation. I have always said that our country needs a comprehensive plan, policy, and strategy to defeat the radical Islamists terrorizing Iraq and Syria. Certainly, ISIS represents the antithesis of American ideals, and they have gruesomely demonstrated their disgust for our Nation with the beheadings of two American journalists in recent weeks. What we are considering today is a partial plan, one of which I remain uncertain as to whether it will have the desired outcome. In fact, since 2011, the administration has consistently resisted any major efforts to arm and train the moderate opposition forces in Syria even when, I believe, a window existed to effectively do that some time ago. At a hearing in the Appropriations Committee in February of 2012, I questioned then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about why we were not doing more to help the moderate Syrian opposition. She flatly rejected providing support then. Now, however, I fear we may have effectively missed the time in which arming the FSA will impact the barbarism of ISIL in the region. Unfortunately, since 2011 and early 2012, the situation in Syria has become dramatically more complex, and identifying true allies in the fight against ISIS will be exceedingly difficult. Questions remain about the President's strategy: How will we effectively vet the opposition forces? How will we ensure that arms delivered will not be sold to ISIS forces or will not be used against already persecuted people in the region, such as the Syrian Christians? ISIL is a threat to our Nation's security, and, no doubt, it must be destroyed and defeated, but I do have trepidation regarding this initial step in equipping the FSA at this juncture. Those voting on this measure, I suspect, will do so with great reluctance. Those voting ``no'' will do so with discomfort.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this border security legislation presented to us today, for a number of reasons. It does provide for humanitarian assistance. This legislation does deal with this issue in a compassionate, thoughtful way to deal with the unaccompanied children. It secures the border, provides for funding for the National Guard, and it does many other things, too, in terms of policy changes that would treat these children just as we would treat unaccompanied children who cross the border from Canada or Mexico. It is the right policy for a whole host of reasons. Just last week, Congressmen Gerlach, Meehan, and I visited an Office of Refugee Resettlement program in Womelsdorf, Berks County in Pennsylvania, and those children are treated compassionately. But let me tell you what will happen if we do nothing here today. The children who are coming into my district in Womelsdorf, and also in Allentown, where I will be visiting a center tomorrow, these children will, in fact, keep coming into our communities and they will be treated humanely. Then they will be resettled and reunited with parents or family members who are already in the United States and, in most cases, here unlawfully. That is what doing nothing means. The children will keep coming. They will be resettled throughout the country, and they will basically reside somewhere within the interior of this country. That is what doing nothing means. It would be reckless and irresponsible for the House to walk out of here today without addressing this border and humanitarian crisis. This bill is the right thing to do. It secures the border, provides humanitarian assistance, and it makes the necessary policy changes to stop this flow of children. This is a tragedy that these children are leaving their countries in this way. I can't imagine the desperation these families must feel, that they would let their children travel with somebody unaccompanied, drug dealers and cartels and human smugglers, coyotes. It is unthinkable. We need to make sure this stops. Many children aren't making it along the way. I met with a 5-year-old girl who told me her horrible story, and I shudder to think of the children who didn't make it. That is why we need to act today. It is the right thing to do, it is the compassionate thing to do, and it is in keeping with our American tradition.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the people of Slatington as they prepare to celebrate their 150th anniversary. That would be their sesquicentennial, Mr. Speaker. The Borough of Slatington is located in northern Lehigh County and is in Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District. As their Member of Congress, it is my honor to enter these words into the Congressional Record in recognition of this proud event. The story of Slatington's founding is a very American story. Like so many communities, it began as a farm settlement. Nicholas Kern and his family settled the area in 1741. Their extensive farmstead included a gristmill, sawmill and a tavern. They farmed the fertile soil along the Lehigh River. Another European settler, Ambrose Remaley also established himself in the area, holding land warrants in what is now the southern portion of present day Slatington. Agriculture remained predominant in the area until three Welshmen, Owen Jones, William Roberts and Nelson LaBar made a significant discovery in 1844. The area was rich in slate--and so Slatington soon gained its name. By 1847 the first school slate factory in the United States opened in the town. The discovery of slate and subsequent quarrying and production of slate products brought about rapid growth. Slatington incorporated as a borough on September 7, 1864. At its peak, the slate industry provided employment for 2,000 people. They worked in the quarries or they worked to produce curbing, roofing tiles, sidewalks and importantly, school blackboards and slates. In fact, the specific type and color of the slate quarried in Slatington proved to be ideal for use in school blackboards. Slatington became known as the ``blackboard capital of America.'' The blackboards and school slates produced in Slatington played an important role in helping educate children across the country in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Slatington's slate products weren't just shipped all over the United States--they were shipped and bought across the World. Even as the slate industry began to fade as other materials became cheaper and because of new technologies, Slatington continued to thrive. Its rich history is a source of pride for the community and for Lehigh County. For example, the Borough boasts the oldest Halloween Parade in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Part of Slatington is a National Register Historic District, and the Borough has two statues of Firemen listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Present day citizens of Slatington are justifiably proud of their past, especially on the advent of their 150th Anniversary. At the same time, they have their eye on the future and remain intent on assuring that Slatington remains a great place for people to live, work and raise families. I ask the House and the Speaker to join me in celebrating their Borough's 150th Anniversary and wishing them continued happiness, harmony and success moving forward.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise today in strong support of H.R. 4080, the Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act. I would especially like to thank Dr. Burgess of Texas and Representative Gene Green of Texas for introducing this very important, critical piece of legislation. As has been mentioned, the leading cause of death for people under the age of 45 is trauma. It is, unfortunately, something a majority of States is not adequately prepared to handle. According to the CDC, trauma kills more Americans than AIDS and strokes combined. The Nation needs a robust network to respond quickly and efficiently to get seriously injured individuals to the appropriate trauma center within that golden hour that has been much discussed, which is the time period when medical intervention is the most effective in saving lives and in saving function. H.R. 4080, if enacted, will allow for the development of innovative State and regionalized care, which is necessary to prevent these trauma deaths. The bill would also direct States to update their model trauma care plans with the input of stakeholders. When the difference between life and death rests on the ability to deliver coordinated trauma care within the golden hour, we need legislation in place, such as H.R. 4080, in order to improve the delivery of emergency medical care to severely injured patients. While we are at it, at some point, we should deal with the issue of liability reform for trauma centers because we need on-call specialists to deliver that care when we most need it, but that is a fight for another day. Today, let's get H.R. 4080 done. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that was introduced by Dr. Burgess and Mr. Green.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Care Coverage Clarification Act. I do want to point out that the American people do expect us to work together in a responsible manner to solve real problems, and that is what this bill we are talking about today does. I certainly want to thank my colleagues, Representative Carney of Delaware and Representative Nunes of California, for taking the initiative to craft this really important piece of legislation. I also know it is really difficult to look at any bill dealing with the health care law without considering the broader context of the law. However, it is also difficult to look at the state of our economy today and be nonchalant about the fact that 1,200 of our fellow Americans stand to lose their jobs if we don't act and pass this legislation. Many of those folks live in the State of Delaware. Many of them live in the State of Pennsylvania, just over the Delaware State line. So our constituents are hearing about it, just like the story you heard from Mr. Carney and he is stopped by his constituents. We are hearing about this at home. So that is really what this bill introduced by Mr. Carney and Mr. Nunes does. It saves jobs, it is that simple, and it does so without jeopardizing anybody's health care. No one is going to be affected by this in a negative way. The bill on the floor today simply allows American companies to continue selling insurance to people who live and work overseas, many of our neighbors and friends. That happens to them. If we don't pass this bill, the business will go to foreign insurance companies who will be selling these plans and possibly getting many of these jobs. Why would we want to do that? More importantly, why would we even allow that? So this bill represents a very narrow change to the law and saves jobs. This bill simply amends the law. It does not end the law. This is not a partisan bill. This bill is a vote to keep jobs here in America and Pennsylvania and Delaware and California and other places and would take sensible steps to fix a law that we all know needs to be fixed. Again, I know it is difficult, but we need to focus on the trees here and look past the forest, so to speak, on this bill. We need to take action and save jobs for American workers. And most important of all, we need to demonstrate to the American people that we can work together to solve very specific problems that need to be fixed. That is what we are doing. That is why everybody, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, should stand up and enthusiastically support this bill that will not harm anyone's health care and will save American jobs.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, just in response to some of the comments I heard from my colleagues from California, I think it is pretty clear, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, has been quoted here, but under this bill, the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms that all plans are ACA compliant. The JCT also confirms that more U.S. employers--American employers--will offer employer-sponsored insurance as a result of this bill. Further, the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms that the impacts of this legislation are under 1 million people, closer to 300,000 at best. That is what we are talking about here. Let's be very clear. The Nunes amendment that was offered to this bill actually does help solve many of the problems I believe that have been raised here in the last few minutes. Mr. Waxman from California also raised his concerns. But I must say that if we don't move on this bill, we are not going to have to worry about any of this, because Americans working overseas as expats will be buying insurance from German insurance companies or British or some other European concern. These Americans may be working in places like Ghana, Ethiopia, or Poland. Frankly, the ACA, the health care law, really has no standing in those countries. So, please, this is a very targeted piece of legislation. These Americans will have good, quality health care as they are working overseas in countries that really don't recognize the health care law. So it is a commonsense proposal. The JCT, the Joint Committee on Taxation, confirms that this is going to affect fewer than 300,000 people. We know that all these plans are ACA compliant, and we know that more U.S. employers are going to offer employer-sponsored health insurance as a result of passing this bill. I say vote for the bill, do the right thing, get the bill to the Senate and ultimately to the President's desk.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation today, the Save American Workers Act. Let's face it. The health care law has redefined what it means to be a full-time worker in this country. Notwithstanding the comments of my colleague from Washington, I must disagree with what he has been saying about it. This bill does not in any way repeal the health care law. What it does do, it amends the law. It does not end it. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, ``Amend it; don't end it.'' This amends it. Let's be very clear about that. In my district, let me tell you who is affected by this. Cafeteria workers who work in school districts, like East Penn School District or the Southern Lehigh School District, they are getting their hours reduced below 30. I have a major national employer who just opened a major distribution facility in my district with over 500 employees. They have over 50,000 people nationwide. More than half of their employees are part time. Many of those are being reduced below 30 hours per week as a result of this law. This is a targeted fix. We know that these hourly workers are going to see wage reductions up to 25 percent as a direct result of the law. There are consequences to this law. It is not about some employers wanting to cheat their employees, quite frankly. It is about many employers not being able to afford the people they have. If they don't reduce their hours, many will be laid off. They will have no wages at all. That is the worst of all worlds. But that is a real consequence of this particular law. We are all hearing it in our districts. And, by the way, we should point out one other thing too. The folks who are most directly impacted by this particular provision of the health care law are the young, are women. They are the ones who are more likely to be affected by this. There is no question about that. And I think we should be clear on those who are most directly impacted. There was a Hoover Institution study that pointed that out, that the young, women, and those without a college education are the most likely to be impacted by the loss of hours, loss of wages. That means less money in their pockets. We are having a debate about the minimum wage over in the Senate right now. Well, why don't we talk about letting people work, letting them work more hours than what this law allows them to. I urge my colleagues to support the Save American Workers Act.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Representative Perry. I really appreciate this opportunity to talk about the National Guard. I first want to start by thanking Congressman Perry for his service in the Pennsylvania National Guard for some time. He is very committed to our country and committed to the Guard. I commend him for putting this on. I also want to commend his chief of staff, who is seated right next to him, Colonel Lauren Muglia, who is also an active guardswoman; and I am very proud of her service at Fort Indiantown Gap in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, at the National Guard center up there, which is located in my congressional district--a very important asset to this country's homeland security and emergency preparedness, as well as any other missions that would be called upon them. But I have a few things I just wanted to say about the Guard very, very quickly. The Army's plan for the National Guard includes, frankly, drastic plans to slash the force structure, end strength and aviation assets, and will put the Guard on the back shelf as a strategic reserve. I am very concerned about this. And I know many of my colleagues are as well. Congress has made a very significant investment in the Guard over the past 12-or-so years to train and equip the Guard as an operational reserve. At a time when the Pentagon must dig very deep for savings in their programs and agencies, the Guard remains a viable investment. I say this as a member of the Appropriations Committee. We have to make a lot of very hard choices with respect to how we allocate our very limited resources. The Defense Department is coming under a great deal of stress. But I want you to consider this: the most recent report of the Reserve Forces Policy Board, or RFPB, concluded that a National Guard member costs about one-third of their Active component counterpart. This would translate into nearly $2.6 billion in savings for every 10,000 positions shifted from a full-time to a part-time status. What's more, the Army National Guard provides 32 percent of the Army's total personnel and 40 percent of its operating force, while only consuming 11 percent of the Army's budget. That represents a value to this country and, frankly, to the taxpayer. I mean no disrespect to anybody, but I think we have to understand the real value of this National Guard to the taxpayer. The Air National Guard provides 19 percent of the Air Force's total personnel and 30 to 40 percent of its overall fighter, tanker, and airlift capacity, at 6 percent of the Air Force budget. Many of those Air National Guardsmen and pilots are very experienced and have many, many hours of service. So I think we should acknowledge how experienced those folks are. In conclusion, I just wanted to say that not only does the Guard provide this operational asset to our overall national security and defense structure; but, just as important, it provides an emergency preparedness and homeland security function that they have to help us deal with all the time. In my State, it is usually floods and weather emergencies. The Guard plays an absolutely critical role to help us during those times. So they have that operational component. They obviously contribute significantly in the wars, and we have seen this, too. By the way, if you have been to Afghanistan or Iraq--and I know some of our colleagues here have served there and paid very heavy prices--frankly, we have seen how well integrated our Guard and Reserve units are with regular Army and regular Air Force units. So I am very proud of that service. Again, that dual mission--they can help us fight wars and they are certainly a critical component to our over homeland security and emergency preparedness strategy in the country. With that, I thank Congressman Perry for his leadership on this issue, and I really appreciate that he put this Special Order together.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this omnibus legislation today for a number of reasons. First, for the fourth year in a row, we are actually cutting overall discretionary spending. That is significant. Spending levels will be lower than they were for the first time since fiscal year 2009. Again, that is very, very significant. It is important that we are not passing another continuing resolution which, frankly, wastes a lot of money. In this legislation, we are putting money where it should be and cutting money where we must. That is important. Finally, I want to say that this legislation will help bring about greater predictability, stability, and certainty not only for the budget process, but the appropriations process, and, most important of all, to the American people. Many people are watching our actions. It will create a better environment for business investment and job creation. Again, this is extraordinarily important. Finally, we roll back some onerous regulations, those on incandescent light bulbs, to fill material. This is extremely important for many of us. Finally, we also fix the issue with the military pensions where we are making sure that those who are disabled and survivors will not be impacted in any way by the recently enacted budget agreement. So for all of these reasons, I urge support of the underlying legislation and commend the chairman and the ranking member and all those involved with this process for a job well done. I support the bill.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Thank you. I would like to also join my colleagues tonight in support of Representative Barletta's very important legislation to help clarify the fact that the volunteer firefighters should not be counted as full-time equivalents under the employer mandate under the health care law, more commonly known as ObamaCare. It has been very clear to me, after having meetings with many of my friends in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, where a number of firefighters from different fire companies came to speak to me on this issue, that the potential impact of this idea of counting volunteer firefighters as full-time equivalents will really have a very negative impact on public safety in that particular community, where volunteer firefighters really do provide the bulk of the fire service, as is the case in much of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and throughout the country. It is clear to me that the health care law is riddled with so many problems. We always knew that this employer mandate was going to be a problem where it says that if you have more than 50 employees you are going to have to provide health care benefits after the first 30 for those working more than 30 hours a week. I don't think anybody in their wildest imagination would have ever thought that a volunteer fire company would have been impacted by this. It raises a whole host of questions too: Well, are those volunteer firefighters part of the municipal workforce? There are all sorts of questions that we simply don't know the answers to. It is my hope that we never have to address the Barletta legislation, as important as it is. I am hopeful that the IRS will come to a ruling at some point to clarify the fact that these volunteers are not full- time equivalents for the purpose of the health care law in the employee mandate. That would be the easiest way out. Absent an IRS ruling, well then let's pass this bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I am delighted that my good friend and colleague Lou Barletta, we share a county, Dauphin County, in the Harrisburg area. We share that county. This is also a very big issue in that part of the State. It is important that we move forward with this legislation in the event that the IRS fails to do its job and provide the clarity and the guidance that so many of our volunteers depend on. More important than the volunteers is the people they serve. These volunteer firefighters are protecting us and this employer mandate will only make that task that much more difficult and deny fire service, unfortunately, to too many people across the country in the Commonwealth. With that, I commend my friend, Mr. Barletta, for his very important legislation.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Congressman Matt Cartwright (PA-17) to honor the Martin Guitar Company in Nazareth, Pennsylvania, on the occasion of their 180th anniversary. For nearly two centuries, Martin Guitar has contributed to the musical culture of America by producing some of the finest acoustic instruments on the market. The story of Martin Guitar's beginning is uniquely American. The company's founder, Christian Frederick Martin, Sr., was born in Markneukirchen, Saxony (now Germany) on 31 January 1796. He became an apprentice guitar maker at the age of 15, and after showing much promise in his early years, opened his own shop. After struggling to run a successful business among Europe's warring trade guilds, Martin determined to seek his fortune in the United States. In 1883, he set up a modest shop in New York City. After five years of hard work, Martin was able to sell his humble store and purchase eight acres of land in Nazareth, Pennsylvania, where the company continues to grow and thrive today. The Martin brand and production line grew steadily through the latter half of the 19th century, during which Martin was responsible for numerous advancements in guitar design, such as a bracing system for guitar stops that is still widely used today. The marriage of innovation and craftsmanship was responsible for creating instruments that would become synonymous with quality among professional and amateur musicians alike. When C.F. Martin, Sr., passed away in 1873 he left the business to his son, Christian Frederick Martin, Jr. This was the beginning of a proud tradition of family leadership that has continued to this day, with C.F. Martin IV, being the sixth member of his family to run the business. As a 21st century company, Martin Guitar has made a concerted effort to source wood in an environmentally sustainable manner, leading the industry in the acceptance of alternative wood species. Although times have changed, Martin Guitar's commitment to producing outstanding musical instruments has not. Today, Martin Guitar is a pillar of the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania, a major employer in the region, and a shining example of American workmanship. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we would like to extend our sincerest congratulations to the Martin Guitar Company and the Martin Family on 180 years of excellence and wish them all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I too want to the take a moment to reflect upon the life and service and dedication of Bill Young. Much has been said about him already this evening, and I too, like many, look back at that corner and want to see Bill Young there, but obviously he is not with us. Before calling Florida his home, Chairman Young was actually born in Harmarville, Pennsylvania, in Allegheny County in western Pennsylvania, that area best known for steel and coal. A lot of tough people came out of that area, and certainly Bill Young, I think, really had a lot of the character traits I associate with people there. He could be very tough when he needed to be, very firm. He was just like steel. Also, we should not forget about his compassion. He was a kind man, a gentle man, a patient man. I would often ask him questions or make a request of him from time to time, and he always listened to me very patiently. He had served here for 22 terms. He didn't have to spend a whole lot of time with me, but he did, and I always appreciated that. He was a great mentor to me and to many other Members here. It was a pleasure to serve with him. There are so many other things about Chairman Young, too. It has been mentioned his support of our troops, particularly our wounded warriors, and the impact they had on him and the impact he had on those wounded warriors. When you get beyond the defense and veterans policy, though, Chairman Young played an integral role in creating a national registry for bone marrow donors back in 1986, and that registry helped save more than 50,000 lives over the years. Again, not having known Bill Young as long as some of my colleagues, I just wanted to say what an extraordinary privilege it was for me to serve with him, to know him, to call him a friend, and really to be one of my mentors here in the House. My deepest thoughts and prayer go out to Beverly and the entire Young family during a difficult time.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the Senate compromise legislation being considered to end this unnecessary government shutdown and futile exercise in brinkmanship. This legislation reopens the government and prevents a catastrophic default and credit downgrade that would spur another recession. I am genuinely pleased that the cooler heads have finally prevailed. However, it is very disappointing that we are in this situation, that after more than 2 weeks of a government shutdown and on the eve of a default on our government's obligations, we have finally reached an agreement. This legislation must be supported, but it should not be celebrated, no high-fives or spiking the football. It is a temporary government funding bill and a short-term debt limit increase. It is not a win for anyone, particularly the institution of Congress or the Presidency, for that matter. The bill represents the conclusion of a difficult period, from which I hope that many can draw important lessons. I hope that this sad episode will result in a newfound commitment and intensity for the governing majority in Congress to make the difficult decisions that must be made to keep the government functioning while addressing the many problems facing our country, including the budget deficit, the Nation's out-of-control debt, and the many challenges presented by the health care law, or ObamaCare. For many months and particularly throughout the last 2 weeks, I have worked tirelessly with colleagues from both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers to find an agreement to break the impasse. I particularly want to thank Representative Ron Kind, Senators Susan Collins and Joe Manchin, and the many other Members who participated in the many discussions. I believe these conversations have laid a strong foundation that we can build on to arrive at agreements on many of the major issues that need to be addressed in this country. I urge my colleagues not only to vote in favor of this legislation tonight but to join with those of us who share an affirmative obligation to govern and who seek bipartisan solutions to the challenges facing our great Nation.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about this issue, as are many of my colleagues. I strongly support this resolution by Messrs. Pitts, Davis, Goodlatte, and others for a whole host of reasons, but let's be very clear about a few things here. This country consumes more sugar than it produces. We must import sugar, whether we like it or not. We also have to deal with some other very basic facts. I listened with intensity to the gentleman from Minnesota, a good friend, who talked about American Crystal losing money. Well, the answer is not to bail them out with our tax dollars. We have seen enough of that around here. It is time to stop those types of unnecessary bailouts. We also heard my good friend from Texas, who, I was relieved today, did not complain about sugar companies making money or confectioners making money, as if profits are something that is evil. We want these companies to make money. We have had 4 years of high sugar prices, and that simply incentivizes more Mexican imports. It provides more incentives for those imports. But let's look at the numbers. The current program is a remnant of the Depression era. It puts 600,000 American jobs in the food industry at risk. Between 1997 and 2011, nearly 127,000 jobs were lost in segments of the food and beverage industries that use sugar in their operations. And, yes, Hershey is located in my district. The current sugar program hits American consumers and businesses with $3.5 billion of extra costs every year. The CBO projects that the Sugar-to-Ethanol Program, known as the Feedstock Flexibility Program, will cost taxpayers $239 million over the next several years, including $51 million this year alone. Some analysts project costs of up to $100 million this year and $250 million over the next 2 years combined. When sugar prices drop below a certain level, the Federal Government buys that sugar and then sells it at a loss to the ethanol producers. The taxpayers are abused twice. When is enough enough? It is unacceptable and wrong to call on the American people to support the current sugar program, not only with their hard-earned consumer dollars, but with their tax dollars as well. Yes, we are having debates around this place right now about the government shutdown and the debt ceiling. The point is we need to get on with this. Let's protect the American people, show them we can do our jobs. I ask my colleagues to reform, not repeal, the current sugar program, but reform it. Let's save the American consumers money in the midst of this tough economy. Let's show the American people we can act responsibly on their behalf. I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to say very clearly: I certainly oppose shutting down the government. I certainly oppose defaulting on this country's obligations. We have an obligation to govern; I take that very seriously. I do support the underlying bill under consideration here today, specifically because of the repeal of the medical device tax, which in my district is real. The medical device tax is stifling innovation; it is costing us jobs; and it is raising costs, which unfortunately appears to be the health care law trifecta--raising costs, stifling innovation, and destroying jobs. Specifically, one company in my district, with nearly 2,000 employees, said that there are no raises for their employees because of this tax this year. Another small company called me up. He makes prosthetic limbs for many folks, including troops who come back from the wars. He said, you know, we've been in business for 100 years; we have a little over 50 people. We're probably not going to make it because of this. They need our help. They're crying out for help. Look, I understand we have to keep the government open, but we know that 79 Senators are on record in support of repealing this tax, Republican and Democrat, States from Minnesota to Massachusetts to New Jersey to Pennsylvania. This is a very big deal, but we need to do it. I also know there is a delay of the law in this bill. I fully expect that when this is sent over to the Senate, the Senate will likely pull that out, but they will likely seriously consider the medical device tax. Let's get that done. It's imperative for us to do so. Again, so many people's livelihoods are dependent on this. We make things in this country; we make medical devices in this country; and we ought to make sure that we don't do anything to harm them. Many of these manufacturers are going to be moving operations overseas. We know this. Let's not let it happen. America has an advantage in this area; let's try to maintain it. A 2.3 percent tax really is harming these small startup companies that need access to capital. It's going to be much harder for folks. I can take you to the University of Pennsylvania and show you startups that are helping us deal with concussions, that are not going to be able to bring their product to market. At this point I would again ask for support of the bill.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us here to govern. Now is the time to govern. In a few short days, the government will shut down unless the House acts. I oppose ObamaCare, and I oppose shutting down the government. We had a vote in the House. The Senate will soon have a vote. They will, in all likelihood, strip out the ``defund ObamaCare'' language and send us back a bill. I believe it is time for us to stop playing political games. I believe it is time for us in a bipartisan manner to vote to fund the government and end this brinksmanship debacle that has been going on for the past few days. I feel very strongly about this. Moreover, the American people expect us to make sure that services are provided. I want to make sure the troops are paid and that the people who are in need of services actually receive them. There will be more opportunities to debate these issues going forward, particularly as it relates to the debt ceiling, but for now, fund the government, and do it in a bipartisan way. As they say in Texas, ``Get 'er done.''

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support today of this legislation. I also want to extend my thanks to Chairman Hastings, to Mr. Holt, to Ranking Member DeFazio, and the former ranking member, Senator Markey, all for their leadership, as well as our friends in the Senate, Senators Wyden and Murkowski. This is truly an example of a good bipartisan piece of legislation done in a bicameral manner. I think we can all take pride in the fact that Congress can actually get things done when we put our minds to it. While I had some reservations regarding the initial House bill, due to some potential issues of potential contract violations, this bill before us, H.R. 527, fairly addresses those concerns. I tried to address those concerns in the previous bill. I also want to thank Ms. Esty and Mr. Higgins from New York for their strong support in that effort. Again, passing this legislation will ensure continued access to the Nation's helium supply for American businesses and researchers. As has been stated, if no action is taken before October 1, the Bureau of Land Management will be forced to shutter the Federal Helium Reserve, putting at risk thousands of jobs of hardworking Americans, particularly those in the manufacturing sector. A steady supply of helium is absolutely essential in manufacturing items such as MRI scanners, computer chips, and fiber optic cables. We need to make sure that we can continue in those pursuits. Also, it is important to many refiners, like in my district Air Products and Chemicals, in Ms. Esty's district Praxair, Linde and others, who are also very much involved with making sure this helium gets to the marketplace and to the end users. Today's action will ensure that these advanced and high-tech manufacturers will not lose access to over one-third of the global supply of helium at a time when a helium shortage is already in place. Again, I want to say thanks to everybody involved--Mr. Holt and Mr. Hastings--for their patience for listening and for coming up with a very good solution to a very important problem.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for organizing this Special Order this evening to discuss the crisis in Syria. In my view, it is really indisputable that Bashar al-Assad is a villain who has committed heinous, mortal crimes with the use of chemical weapons against his own people. What is debatable, however, is America's policy on Syria and the broader Middle East. I have raised the issue of Syria with this administration at numerous hearings as a member of the Appropriations Committee. I have also worked with Syrians in my own community, and I have the largest population of Syrian Americans of any Member of Congress in the United States. I have met with them. They have brought to my attention issues of abducted Christian archbishops who have been abducted in Syrian and whose whereabouts, unfortunately, are unknown. There is a lot of work going on to try to secure their release, but that said, you can understand their concern for that part of the world. I have spent time, too, in meetings with America's wonderful friend, King Abdullah of Jordan, who has also shared his perspective on the plight of the Syrian people. But what I have observed most of all is a very sad observation, and that is the friends of the Syrian regime-- Iran, Russia and Hezbollah--are far more committed to President Assad than the friends of the Syrian people--and that would be the West and the Arab League--are to these moderate opposition forces. I had asked Secretary Hillary Clinton--former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--back in February, 2012, if the administration was prepared to provide some type of material support to moderate secular opposition groups given that it looked like Assad's government was very weak, there was a popular uprising, and it seemed there might be a better outcome. She was pretty clear with me at the time that she thought providing light arms would be of little help to the opposition in the face of Assad's substantial military, with all his air assets, artillery and armor. To put it bluntly and short, she really didn't want to get too involved at that time. We really didn't have much of a discussion about the benefits to America, its friends and allies and their interests, if Iran's influence in the region were substantially weakened through the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad. I thought at the time that the President was maybe more concerned about maintaining his reputation as a Nobel Peace Prize winner antiwar candidate than actually developing what I thought would be a more practical response for Syria. It just seemed that inaction and indecision were, and frankly today, remain the order of the day. In the meantime, let's fast forward from a year and a half, 2 years ago to today: al-Nusra and other radical Islamist terrorist organizations have rushed into this vacuum and filled the void, so to speak. So really today there aren't any good public policy outcomes for the United States. The time for the United States to more constructively intervene and to reach a more efficacious resolution, the time for that has long passed. So here we are, over these last 2\1/2\ years, this Syrian civil war has descended into both a sectarian and proxy conflict, and these events have moved well beyond the United States ability to control with Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia fully committed to the Assad government. I think we all know, as Mr. Fortenberry knows, we know we have a very war-weary population which is not going to support a half-hearted, poorly thought out military strike which will only expose the United States and its friends to greater risks, including the possibility of a broader regional conflagration. This could include more chemical weapons attacks against the Syrian people and possibly Israel, potential cyber attacks on American critical infrastructure in both the financial services and energy sectors, an unleashed Hezbollah, and other unforeseen, asymmetrical responses. I am deeply concerned about this, as we all should be. But we can't just look at Syria in isolation; we have to look at it in the much broader context of the Middle East. Unfortunately, and I'm going to have to be a bit critical of the President at this time, witness how President Obama turned his back on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011 after 2 weeks of uprisings. Whatever his faults, whatever his shortcomings, Hosni Mubarak was a loyal, 30-year friend of the United States--a lesson learned by our friends and our allies throughout the region and throughout the world. Of course, prior to that incident there was the Green Revolution in Iran where we saw a lot of very brave people in Iran stand up to the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran. We witnessed that, and it seemed this administration could barely utter words of support to these very brave people who stood up to a tyrant, Ahmadinejad, who made all sorts of reckless and inflammatory and hateful statements against the West and particularly Israel, and so I was just astounded that the administration could barely utter words of support. Then, of course, we learned about leading from behind in Libya. Actually, leading from behind the French and the British in Libya, to be precise. I was one of only a handful of Republicans in the House to support the authorization for force in Libya--after the fact, but I supported it. So I'm not an isolationist. I believe that we have an important role internationally with the United States, and we have to be constructively engaged. But let's move forward to 2013. Bashar al-Assad's government launches chemical attacks against his own people. I believe the intelligence is clear that he did it, or his government did it, so I'm not debating those facts, what appear to be facts. But we witnessed these chemicals attacks in both the late spring and again just a few weeks ago in August, these chemical attacks. We witnessed the trampling of the red line set down by the President not once but twice, maybe more than that for all I know. And now over 100,000 Syrians have been killed. What is the President's strategy for Syria? I couldn't explain it to anybody if they asked. He talked about pinpricks or his administration has talked about pinpricks, shots across the bow, a military action of days not weeks, and no intention to topple Assad or to degrade his military capacity to make war on his own people, for that matter. I'm learning a lot about what we will not do, but I'm not really sure what we're trying to do or trying to accomplish. So a very limited air strike to punish Mr. Assad is not going to alter the outcome of the Syrian civil war. What is the point or purpose? What is the clarity of mission? In my view, America's national interest is really twofold in Syria. One, we want to limit Iranian influence in the region, and, two, the other issue deals with securing those chemical weapons, frankly, from both the Assad government and the radical elements of that opposition who would probably be just as inclined to use them. So much so that King Abdullah of Jordan came to Members of Congress to express his real concern about al-Nusra forces getting too close, dangerously close to a chemical site in southern Syria, and that was just a few months ago. So now we also witnessed, too, there really is not a coalition of the willing to tackle Mr. Assad's crimes. It seems more a coalition of the unwilling. The United Nations really doesn't seem anywhere to be found, although in recent days, in the last 24 hours we're hearing there might be some discussion with the Russians about some kind of a resolution on securing those sites, but the U.N. is really nowhere to be found. NATO does not seem to be fully engaged at all, although maybe some members are supportive. And, of course, we've witnessed what the British Parliament did to Prime Minister Cameron in rebuking him. And so the British, our beloved friends and allies, are not going to be engaged in this one, and so we're pretty much on our own. Again, I've called this a coalition of the unwilling. And so I think it would behoove the United States not to move in what appears to be almost a unilateral manner. I have read, too, recently, that some of the Arab governments, Saudi Arabia and others, would be willing to help pay for some of this mission should we strike. You know, on the one hand, I appreciate that. On the other, the United States military is really not a mercenary force for anyone. A lot of folks may be encouraging us or cheering us on, but it doesn't seem they are willing to put people in harm's way. So I think we have to keep that in mind as we talk about this. I'm going to conclude in a moment, but I was one of the folks who said it is always important for the President to consult with Congress prior to taking any kind of military action. It's important in our system, although I don't believe the President necessarily needs a congressional authorization for what he has called a very limited airstrike. But now that he has asked me to engage in this debate, I owe the President fair consideration of his policy in Syria, whatever it may be. Again, I said call me skeptical; now you can call me outright opposed. I have said from day one that the President didn't seem to have his heart in this impending military action. He was looking for a way out after the U.N., the U.K., and NATO, a lot of our friends were just not willing to go along, and then the President turned to Congress as a last resort for an authorization where he has, of course, run into very, very heavy skepticism. I just did see any Churchillian resolve in our Commander in Chief. Our men and women in uniform deserve a Commander in Chief who is full-throated in support of what is likely to become a very dangerous military operation and could possibly spiral out of control. But more importantly, we have to be cognizant of the potential consequences and ramifications for that action. I think the President of the United States owes that to the American people, to make it clear what his policy is, what his mission is, not what he's not going to do, but what he intends to do. After the President really threw this issue to Congress, we witnessed President Assad's jubilant supporters celebrating in the Syrian streets, and I'm sure the corridors of power in Tehran and Moscow, and it seems now that America's friends and allies watched this mystifying failure of Presidential leadership unfold with dismay. So have our constituents. We have all received these calls. In my view, and I am really sad to say this, Barack Obama may have diminished his own Presidency in the process, but more problematically, diminished America's standing in the world among both friend and foe alike, and that's a real tragedy. You know, in this upcoming vote in Congress, if it's to come at all at this point, it is really not so much a vote on authorizing a military strike or military intervention in Syria. The stakes have grown beyond that. It's much more a vote of confidence on the President's Syrian and broader Middle East policy. On that score, I have no confidence. And I just wanted to say one last thing. I mentioned I have a very large Syrian population in my community, Syrian Americans. They're great Americans. They've been part of my community for a long time, largely Christian, Antioch Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian and other denominations. They are scared. I think they know what Bashar Assad is, and many are very uncomfortable with what he is. And on the other hand, they have seen al-Nusra and al Qaeda, and are absolutely terrified of that operation. And so they're caught in this sectarian crossfire. They don't want to be there. They're worried about atrocities, grievous atrocities being committed against the Christian people of Syria. We just witnessed the other day, there was a story of a small village, I believe not too far from Damascus, where the language of Aramaic is spoken; I guess one of the few places in the world where it is still spoken. Why is that significant? Well, if you're a Christian, you know that Aramaic was the language that Jesus Christ spoke. And to know that this ancient community--and of course much of Syria's an ancient civilization--to know that these people could be under attack when you find out that al-Nusra forces had entered and intervened, and I hope they've been cleared out. But that said, you think about this, and we worry about the history of mankind and the history of the Christian tradition is at risk here, and potentially a great risk of extermination. And we've witnessed this in Egypt too. I mean, there are lessons to be learned from Egypt. When Mubarak fell, the Christian population, the Coptic Christian population of Egypt, became very vulnerable. We know that--extremely vulnerable. Atrocities committed against Christians, desecration of the churches, burning, other terrible things have happened, and I fear that we might see similar, if not worse, things happen in Syria. So whatever this country chooses, whatever course of action this country chooses to pursue, I don't believe that a military intervention right now by the United States would advance America's policy objectives; and frankly, I don't think it would change the trajectory of the Syrian civil war. People have said, well, doing nothing at all is the worst of all possibilities, the worst of all options. Well, I would argue that if we're not certain what this limited, so-called limited military intervention will bring, if we're very unclear about that, then I would argue that no action is better than a limited action which may not do much of anything to alter the course of this civil war. So I think we have to be very cautious and very restrained. I do appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska allowing me this opportunity to speak on this issue, and for his leadership, and for allowing me this time.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DENT. It seems that the policy of the United States and Syria, since the beginning of the uprising in Syria, has largely been one of inaction and detachment. And, in many respects, we outsourced the arming of the opposition forces to many of our good friends: the Turks, the Qataris, the Saudis, and others. And whether we like it or not--and we don't like it in many respects--many of the folks who were armed were people who don't share our interests and values, the al-Nusra forces in particular. But there are moderate forces, and if the United States had demonstrated some leadership early in this, during that conflict, to help identify moderate secular opposition forces, there probably could have been multi-ethnic again and secular, it could have been Kurdish and Christian and moderate Sunni, that might have helped bring about a more legitimate or a better opposition force that the international community would be rallying around. But that, unfortunately, has not happened, and now you read about large swaths of territory in Syria dominated by some opposition forces that have been rather radicalized; and that's unfortunate because there are many elements of the Free Syrian Army, of course, who really do want to try to bring about more representative government and, I think, would embrace the values that you and I hold dear. But, you know, time has passed. Time has passed, and I just don't see a good outcome, as I stated earlier, at this point. And I just wish--I think the American people understand this intuitively. And it also speaks to NATO. What's happening with NATO? It's a great organization. I believe in NATO. It's a collective defense organization. I believe in its military value and its political value. But it seems, since the end of the Cold War, maybe it's gone a little bit adrift. And Turkey has been a loyal friend and NATO ally for decades. They are directly affected by this conflict in Syria. They may make demands of us and NATO at some point, and we're going to have to think that through, as policymakers, what we would do if our good friends, the Turks, make a request of us, and certainly our good friends in Jordan.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DENT. I just want to say one more thing. You know, the President has said that this red line that was crossed was not his red line, but the international community's red line. Ninety-eight percent of the world has opposed chemical weapons use and has agreed to the various conventions on chemical weapons. Unfortunately, 98 percent of the world isn't prepared to help us in this intervention. We're on our own, and I just wanted to point that out.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DENT. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for his kind comments about his experiences with various folks who are in Syria. I just wanted to say one other thing too. This past Sunday I attended a church service at my own church that has a large Syrian community; and a woman made a presentation at the church who represents the Presbyterian Church of Lebanon and Syria, and spoke in my church in very moderate, secular tones about why she thought it was not in anyone's interest for the United States to intervene at this point in the Syrian civil war. It was a very compelling statement. Then, after that church service, I stopped by another at St. George Antioch Orthodox Church after their services had ended and met with some of the parishioners whose family members are over there, in many cases, and some told me their family members had been killed. And there was a lot of crying and wailing and deep sadness. It's quite emotional for them, as you can well imagine. They feel so strongly that this intervention is only going to make the plight of the Christians that much more dire and difficult in Syria and that it could lead to their ultimate extermination in many cases. This was their term, not mine. That's how serious this is to them in a country, that I believe, the last I checked, is somewhere between 15 to 20 percent Christian, although the numbers are diminishing, given this turmoil. We've seen that in many Middle Eastern countries. The Christian communities are just not able to endure in this type of environment. So I appreciate your interest in this issue, Mr. King, and thank you for allowing me to speak. Keep up the good work.