Charles Dent

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2218. I heard some comments today about coal ash. Let me be very clear: coal ash maybe at one point was energetic, but the coal ash we're discussing here today is inert. It's a lot like dirt, to be quite honest. As a cochair of the Congressional Cement Caucus, I have the largest cement producing district in America. The cement and concrete folks, the industry, is by far the Nation's largest recycler of coal combustion residuals, or CCRs or coal ash as it's better known. Each year, more than 11 million tons of coal ash is recycled in the production of concrete. So this is essential to our manufacturing sector. Domestic manufacturers typically reuse an additional 3 million tons of coal ash annually as a raw material in cement production. The coal ash used in the process serves as a substitute for key ingredients in cement, which would otherwise be mined. Without H.R. 2218, the EPA would be able to classify coal ash as a hazardous material, which in turn would put an end to this very useful recycling. Even the continued regulatory uncertainty generated by the stalled EPA rulemaking would dramatically inhibit the recycling of coal ash in domestic cement and concrete production. This recycling includes all kinds of infrastructure products, including our roads, bridges, homes, schools, and other critical structures. Coal ash continues to be recycled in a safe and responsible manner. Whatever issues there have been with coal ash, they have largely been related to storage. This bill thoroughly addresses coal ash storage issues, which is really where we should be focused. Again, H.R. 2218 provides the clarity needed by top recyclers to continue their efforts and to potentially increase coal ash recycling. So, again, I ask my colleagues to support passage of this important piece of legislation that will ensure the beneficial reuse of coal ash. A ``yes'' vote is the right vote. It is pro-manufacturing. Vote for the legislation.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, do you see this trophy before us? We've been on this House floor many times to celebrate baseball victories, football victories, or, I should say, baseball debacles in our case. But we celebrate a lot of things, also golf. I want to point out that we had a wonderful experience last week, Thursday night, with the Washington Kastles, who are seated up in the Members' gallery. We had a wonderful bipartisan game of tennis between, obviously, the Members, Republican and Democrat intermixed, as well as members of the media. I'm pleased to report to you that there were two teams, the Stars and the Stripes. My colleagues here, Mr. Watt, Ms. Edwards, and Shelley Moore Capito, were on the Stripes, and I'll introduce the Stars team in a moment. Mr. Bishop will do that. We had a wonderful game. We should also let you know, too, that members of the media played. I should let you know that part of Stripes' team included David Gregory of ``Meet the Press.'' He's a bigger problem on the tennis court than he is in an interview on ``Meet the Press.'' I also want you to know he's got a big serve. You've got to watch him. Our coach was Leander Paes, who's seated in the gallery, a professional. Our team also included former Senator John Breaux; Shelley Moore Capito, a Division I player from Duke. Did I say, ``Go Lehigh''? That's basketball. Sorry. There was also Peter Cook from Bloomberg; myself; Donna Edwards, who received the Good Sportsmanship Award; Mel Watt, who I must say was one of the most feisty players I've seen; Mark Ein, the owner of the Washington Kastles, who's also here; David Gregory; Jonathan Karl from ABC News; and Hans Nichols from Bloomberg--a very competitive individual, I might add. It was a great time had by all. I know it's never appropriate to gloat when you win, but we'll do it anyway since we're Members of Congress. Here's our trophy. Stripes beat the Stars. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. DENT. Now I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. DENT. I now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Mr. DENT. Reclaiming my time, I just wanted to say, in conclusion, it was a wonderful cause. Many charities were supported. I should also let you know the Washington Kastles are playing tonight down at the waterfront. Get down there and watch them. It's not tennis anyone; it's tennis everyone. So get out there and do it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I must take exception to some of the remarks I've heard here today. This amendment is absolutely necessary for this country, for the consumer. We are talking about saving consumers $3.5 billion a year and saving 20,000 manufacturing jobs. I must strenuously object to those who say the price of sugar is so low. Let me tell you what is going to happen. When the price of sugar drops below a certain level, the Federal Government will buy that excess sugar, then sell it to ethanol producers at a loss. The taxpayer and the consumer is royally abused twice. This is protectionism at its worse. We all know it. It is time to reform this program. This is not a zero-zero policy as the proponents claim. This is going to cost taxpayers $239 million over the next several years. That is according to CBO. $80 million of taxpayer-funded bailout could come later this year. This issue is about protecting manufacturing jobs, making sure that we have something closer to a market-based price. I represent Hershey, Pennsylvania. I just heard a statement saying, no sugar packets handed out to restaurants are free. Well, that cost is built into the meal that you eat. It is absurd. It is absolutely absurd. We are losing jobs to countries that have more market-based sugar policies. I urge strong support for the Pitts-Goodlatte-Davis-Blumenauer amendment.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I rise in support of the 2014 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill being debated this afternoon. I certainly want to applaud the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Rogers, and certainly the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Carter, as well as Ranking Member Price and the ranking member of the full committee, Mrs. Lowey, for carefully piecing together a bill that appropriately addresses the evolving threats that face our Nation. This bill strikes a proper balance of fiscal responsibility while fulfilling the mission of vital security programs and providing the resources to enforce current law. Regarding fiscal restraint, we're considering a bill today that provides for a reduction in the Department's annual budget by $613 million, eliminating ineffectual programs. Yet the legislation was crafted in such a way that agencies and programs will receive the resources and flexibility they need to meet the security needs facing communities across the country day in and day out. For example, in the wake of the Boston bombings this spring, the bill before us restores DHS' Bombing Prevention program and increases counter-IED training. The Disaster Relief Fund, or the DRF, is robustly funded and will meet the disaster needs of Oklahoma, as well as those who were affected by the hurricanes in the Northeast, such as Hurricane Sandy.

Mr. DENT. The FEMA first responder grants, including fire grants, will receive a 20 percent increase. Further, these SAFER grants will continue to provide additional flexibility to allow communities to use grants to retain or rehire firefighters facing layoffs. As an aside, I want to thank again Ranking Member Price as well as Chairman Rogers for working with me on this critical issue once again. The bottom line is this is a smart, responsible bill that practices fiscal restraint while addressing our most pressing needs in securing our homeland. I urge support of the underlying bill.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. DENT. I appreciate the gentlelady bringing the IG report to our attention. As Ranking Member Price can attest, the committee has a long, bipartisan history supporting robust funding for the H-60 conversions. In fact, the bill includes funds sufficient to completely recap two H-60 helicopters. Though I am aware CBP has some reservations about conclusions in the IG report, I am a proponent of not paying top dollar when it is not necessary. Consequently, I would like to have an opportunity to dig into these claims before drawing any particular conclusions.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. DENT. Again, I thank the gentlelady for raising this issue. Clearly she has some personal experience flying these aircraft, and I'm grateful for her service.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. I'm certainly sympathetic with the predicament of the gentleman from New York--and he's doing his best to represent his district--but this amendment would cut funding for the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility, or the NBAF, in Manhattan, Kansas, an essential research center for human and animal pathogens, by $404 million and increase funding for research, development, and innovation by an equivalent amount. The bill has already cut funding by $310 million from the President's request of $714 million. The amount provided in the bill--$404 million--is the amount needed in order to obtain the Kansas cost share and begin construction. I believe Kansas is prepared to offer $202 million in support of this project. Again, while I understand the gentleman's local district concern--and he's a strong advocate for his district--this amendment is in fact shortsighted. This horse is already out of the barn, so to speak. We have an immediate need to build up our capacity for research into pathogens that afflict animals in our food chain and, by extension, human beings. The Under Secretary for DHS Science and Technology herself has testified the threat of biological attack through our large and vulnerable food chain is a top priority. She has confirmed that NBAF is required to meet this threat. She's also testified that Plum Island, which is in the gentleman's district, of course, cannot meet this need. Yet this amendment would freeze this effort. The amendment would stall a program needed to address a serious, known risk. I urge opposition to the amendment. We need to get this facility up and running in Kansas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I withdraw my point of order and rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment simply because I don't know the impact on security of this amendment. Who would be released? Where would these prisoners be relocated? And who would they be released to? to Yemen? to the United States? I simply don't know by reading this amendment. It's clear that if these individuals were released to Yemen, they would not likely remain in custody for very long and likely rejoin the fight. At the outset of the President's first term, an executive order declared the intention to close Guantanamo Bay and bring the detainees to the United States. That proposal was rejected by this Congress, and prohibitions on transferring detainees to the U.S. were enacted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. As my colleague and friend Mr. Wolf just discussed yesterday during consideration of the MilCon bill, this amendment could result in very dangerous outcomes. 779 people were detained in the first few years, and at this time it is unknown how many could potentially be released as an effect of this amendment. As you know, several men who have been released from Guantanamo have gone back into the battlefield and killed Americans. We also know that having these dangerous individuals detained and tried in the United States dramatically impacts the facilities and localities where they're located. You must remember the violent nature of some of these individuals and the social impact on having these people in our neighborhoods. I simply cannot support this amendment. It has high monetary and social costs and could potentially endanger our communities. In fact, a few years ago, it was discussed about releasing some of these detainees--five up into New York City--and that was rejected very, very strongly by both Republicans and Democrats. Any proposal that results in these detainees being sent to the United States is simply the wrong policy. I urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the Speaker for allowing me to address the House tonight regarding the Problem Solvers group. I, too, am a proud member of this group--a group of Republicans and Democrats who I think have really one thing in common more than anything else; it's a group of Members of Congress who believe we have an affirmative obligation to govern. That is, we're trying to find a way to get to ``yes'' on some of the big issues of the day because the problems are huge. Clearly, when the country sees a lot of the mindless bickering and fighting that goes on here, it does not inspire confidence, and it certainly does contribute to greater uncertainty. And while nobody here is checking their ideologies or their philosophies at the door, people understand that we must be practical and pragmatic at times to try to find a solution to a common problem. That doesn't mean we'll always get to a solution; sometimes we will and sometimes we won't. But you know what, it's important that we try. I think that's what this group is about, trying to find solutions to the big problems of the day--not running away from them, not hiding, not each side running to their safe camp and then ignoring the problem and hoping that somebody else at a later date will deal with it. What I'm most proud about with this group is that many of these Members have demonstrated political courage on both sides of the aisle and have stood up time and again to try to do the right thing for the good of the country. Like everybody else here, too, I hear from my constituents. My constituents are very much alarmed by what they're seeing happening in Washington. They think that we're in warring camps; no one likes each other and no one gets along, but worst of all, no one is trying, no one is trying to solve the great problems of the day. I'm really pleased, as has been mentioned previously, that this Problem Solvers group, the first issue out of the box for us was No Budget No Pay--an idea that originated with this organization. And sure enough, within fairly short order, it became law. It's a step. It's an important step. I'm proud that this group was part of it. I know over time, in the near future, this organization will be coming up with more ideas that we can present to the American people in a way that I think they will find very helpful and very useful. So again, I just want to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, many of whom I call friends. We're all friends who are really trying to do the right thing. So I just wanted to say thank you, and I commend the efforts. We need more of this, not less of it.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, the House will again vote to address the imprecisely named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Critics say that we're tilting at windmills. Well, Mr. Speaker, let's review: Within the last month or so, we've heard from the Senator who authored the law refer to it as a coming ``train wreck''--that's right, he called it a ``train wreck''; We've heard the administration official responsible for helping set up the insurance exchanges worry that the public might be in for a ``Third World experience'' as they try and find health care; Oh, and let us not forget some of the very same Members of Congress who voted to foist this massive overreach on Americans are now feverishly trying to find ways to exempt themselves and their staffs from its effects. Let's look at the checklist, shall we? Premiums shooting up, check; Small businesses hiring fewer workers and jobs being lost, check; Employees seeing their hours cut, check; Faulty cost projections, check. Everything that opponents of this law listed as a reason to vote against this example of government overreach is actually occurring and happening. Tilting at windmills, Mr. Speaker, hardly. Working to protect the American people from a horribly disruptive and ineffective law, certainly.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Robert J. Kopecek, president of Northampton Community College from 1977-2003, who passed away in North Carolina on April 25. Dr. Kopecek's vision was to expand access to education, foster economic development and make Northampton a world-class community college. Dr. Kopecek achieved these goals and much more, establishing a legacy as one of Pennsylvania's pre-eminent educational leaders. Under his leadership, enrollment at Northampton grew from 7,900 students a year to nearly 25,000, and the academic offerings expanded to include programs in more than 100 fields of study. To allow more people access to an education, Dr. Kopecek led successful efforts to offer classes in downtown Bethlehem, in the Lehigh Valley, and in Monroe County. As enrollment grew, so did the campus with the addition of Communications Hall and a child care center, the expansion of the College Center and Commonwealth Hall, and growing use of educational technology. In 1986, with private donations, Northampton became the first community college in Pennsylvania to build residence halls, enabling the student body, over time, to become more diverse, including international students. While leading the college, Dr. Kopecek also played an active role in the community. During his tenure, outreach to the community came to include adult literacy and English-as-a-second language programs, Horizons for Youth, and the Art as a Way of Learning program that became a national model in early childhood education. He also worked closely with business and industry, leading local manufacturers to rate Northampton as the ``most visible'' and ``most helpful'' organization involved in economic development in Northampton County. Dr. Kopecek led the movement to establish what was then the Northampton County Development Corporation, and served on the boards or advisory committees of the Bethlehem Chamber of Commerce, the Lehigh Valley Partnership, the Northampton County Industrial Development Authority, the Ben Franklin Partnership, and the Private Industry Council. He twice served as president of the Pennsylvania Commission for Community Colleges, and once as chair of the Pennsylvania Association of Colleges and Universities whose membership includes almost all of the public and private colleges and universities in the Commonwealth. Dr. Mark Erickson, current NCC president, noted ``Bob was a true visionary and his impact on this college, our students, faculty and staff will be felt for generations to come.'' An editorial in The Express-Times at the time of his retirement described him as ``a miracle worker.'' Another in The Morning Call credited him with making Northampton and the community better places, noting that one of his gifts was recognizing ``the importance of community colleges to provide near-universal access to education beyond high school'' and ``how vital the community college is to economic development in its supporting region.'' It is truly an honor to recognize Dr. Kopecek and his dedicated service and lasting contributions to the Northampton community.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the dedicated staff of Sacred Heart Hospital as they continue to celebrate Sacred Heart's 100th year of providing dedicated service to the community. Sacred Heart Hospital started in 1912 in response to a diphtheria outbreak when the Missionary Sisters of the Most Sacred Heart arrived in Allentown to render nursing service to the diphtheria patients of the Sacred Heart Parish. Since that time, Sacred Heart has answered each and every call from the community. When Sacred Heart Hospital made a commitment to the Allentown community over 100 years ago, the hospital was a draw to the city and, as a result, a neighborhood took shape. Sacred Heart's response to this neighborhood and beyond has always been simple--they are there to serve. Sacred Heart is personal, different and it is a unique place to heal as a patient. The hospital is also a special, caring place to work each day, with staff and employees who truly believe in the mission of providing nurturing care. Catholic beliefs inspire the Sacred Heart's philosophy of patient care by creating balanced and compassionate paths to well-being. Sacred Heart is focused on providing all persons the personalized approach to medical care they deserve. Sacred Heart holds the firm belief that it is their responsibility to care for those in need, to promote and to defend the human dignity of each patient, and to create an environment that promotes healing and compassion. These values, and a tradition of commitment to the community, are used to guide the team of nearly 1,300 physicians and medical support staff every day. Sacred Heart was established as an institution that was truly focused on the patient and that focus will never change. On a personal note, I was born at Sacred Heart Hospital and so were my three children. Mr. Speaker, I hope Sacred Heart remains a vital part of our community far into the future. I offer my heartfelt congratulations and thanks to the people that make Sacred Heart such a great asset to our community and I wish them continued success and growth.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I seek to offer an amendment and address the House.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, our amendment, the Dent-Higgins-Esty amendment, ensures the continued supply of helium for end users while requiring the BLM, Bureau of Land Management, to honor existing contracts for the supply and delivery of this vital resource. Most importantly, the amendment protects American manufacturers who use helium from the uncertainty of a disrupted helium supply. It's absolutely essential. Some of my colleagues have repeatedly stated that helium has been given away by BLM at rock-bottom prices to ``a monopoly of refiners.'' Respectfully, the current price structure says otherwise. Since BLM began selling off helium under this program, during most years far less than all the helium available to be purchased was purchased. In fact, during some years, no helium was purchased at all. If the price were really so low, wouldn't all the available helium have been purchased? Instead, the BLM price set for the purchase of crude helium has been higher than the crude price for helium purchased elsewhere in the United States. Further, there is absolutely no bar to the taxpayer getting much more revenue from helium sales today. BLM can impose higher prices for helium right now. In fact, over the past 3 years, BLM has raised its prices by 30 percent. When the Congress in 1996 decided to privatize helium in the BLM reserve, a few companies stepped up and spent tens of millions of dollars to build a helium enrichment unit, which the BLM operates, a highly unusual public-private partnership. If there are only a few companies who refine helium out of the BLM reserve today, it is because they, and not their competitors, chose to make investments that have benefited our Nation's manufacturers and society generally. Our amendment does not seek to preserve a so-called ``monopoly'' over our Federal helium supply. Instead, our amendment seeks to uphold these existing contract and property rights while ensuring a continued supply of helium for domestic manufacturers. In fact, many welders, the Welders Association, Welders Distributors Association, strongly support this amendment because they are deeply concerned. I'm just going to quickly read what they said. They are deeply concerned about ``the effect of the remedies fashioned in H.R. 527 on the stability of the existing market for helium particularly as they affect the ability to meet contractual obligations for product supply.'' With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to my colleague from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).