Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding landmark to community health and welfare. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the nation's Community Health Center program. Community Health Centers (CRC) are the family doctor to over 23 million Americans and, as such, are the largest network of primary care providers in the country. The CHC model is distinguished by its comprehensive range of health services, recognizing the particular needs and characteristics of the communities they serve. Community Health Centers are located in medically underserved areas, providing needed care for communities and populations that do not have adequate access to care. Community involvement in CHCs is guaranteed by the requirement that Federal Qualified Health Centers must have governing boards of directors that have patients of the center holding at least 51% of the board seats. In Massachusetts we are particularly proud because the nation's first community health center opened in December 1965 on Columbia Point in Boston's Dorchester neighborhood. Drs. Jack Geiger and Count Gibson of Tufts Medical School founded the Columbia Point Health Center in order to meet the needs of the residents of an isolated public housing project, cut off from the City's health resources. Drs. Geiger and Gibson opened a rural center shortly thereafter in the Delta region of Mississippi. From that start, the community health center program expanded throughout the country. In 1966, the esteemed late Senator Edward M. Kennedy visited the Columbia Point Health Center and immediately understood its mission and its value. He became the greatest champion health centers have ever known. Over the next 50 years, with his leadership and support, the Community Health Center program expanded tremendously. Mr. Speaker, there are now over 1,270 community health centers providing services at 9,000 sites across the country. CHCs have become the primary source of medical, dental, behavioral health, substance abuse treatment, social services and other community health services for neighborhoods and rural communities that would otherwise be inadequately served. CHCs have also provided employment and career opportunities for thousands of local residents. Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago it all began here, in Massachusetts. I am proud to rise today to recognize and honor what has become a national model for providing services to our country's underserved areas and urge my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the efforts of our Community Health Centers.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, first of all, I want to come to the floor and say thank you to Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their great work in bringing a long-term transportation bill to the floor. They need to really be congratulated on the work that they have done in negotiating the finer points of this bill, which I think is nearly perfect, with one small flaw, which I will attempt to cure with my amendment. Madam Chair, in my district and in many districts across the United States, we are dealing with a situation where high-pressure natural gas lines are being extended and expanded in some urban areas and some rural areas. I have three areas in my district that are impacted severely in some respects: the town of Dedham, the town of Weymouth, and the neighborhood of West Roxbury. I think the neighborhood of West Roxbury offers the most clear example of what my concern is. In the neighborhood of West Roxbury, we have an active gravel quarry. It is located a matter of yards away from a residential area. You could throw a baseball from the blasting zone of the quarry to the residential homes next door. You have got kids there. You have got schools there. It is a densely settled population there and is a beautiful neighborhood. FERC, in its wisdom, has authorized the placement of a high-pressure gas line that runs through the active blast zone adjacent to the residential area where my constituents live and are raising their families, where their kids go to bed at night. We cannot get entrance into the process because FERC controls the whole process. They make their decision, and then, in your appeal, they get to review their own decision. So what this amendment would do in those situations--like the West Roxbury situation where you have a pipeline company putting in a high- pressure gas line through an active blast zone next to a residential area--is to have an appeal process where the public safety officers of the State could ask for a review on public safety grounds of that decision of where to place that pipeline. In all fairness to the community, they are just asking them to relocate the pipeline out of the blast zone. It would seem to make sense that that would be a reasonable request. But I think, obviously, the pipeline company is interested in reducing costs and delivering their product. I am trying to intervene, as any Member of Congress would, just to get them to take a good, hard second look at this, a fresh set of eyes on the request that the pipeline company has made and FERC has authorized. So that is the purpose of my amendment here. I am just trying to get a fair hearing on this decision, which I think is a horrendous decision and may result in the loss of life here, if they are not careful. We don't have much of a buffer zone between the pipeline, the quarry, and the homes where the people live. That is the purpose of my amendment. I am urging my colleagues here to consider themselves being in my position, trying to defend your constituents from a palpable danger, hoping that this body would recognize the wisdom in having a real appeal process. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, can I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, we do have a pipeline safety bill that is coming up later in the session. So I would appreciate the opportunity to work with the chairman to try to address that. But I do want to remind him that these are very, very unique situations. You don't have many cases where you have a high-pressure gas line being put through a blast zone adjacent to residential homes. So this is a special danger, and it would require that special danger to exist before the State could take action. We are only asking for extra review. I would remind the Members that there was a tragic incident in 2010 in San Bruno, California, where 8 people were killed and 38 homes were destroyed during a Pacific Gas and Electric natural gas line pipe explosion. That is what I am trying to prevent. This is a rare situation. I realize you have got to build pipelines, but I think you ought to be able to do it without, as I have said before multiple times, putting a pipeline through a blast zone adjacent to residential homes. I think you can find another route that wouldn't go through that blast zone. It is the one quarry I have got in my district, and they chose to go right through it. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I know the hard work he has put into this bill. I am just looking for some relief for people that I care about. I am very fearful of the consequences if this is allowed to continue. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 1090, the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, if adopted, my amendment would allow the Department of Labor to complete and adopt a rule to require that investment advisers act solely in the best interest of the workers and retirees who rely upon them in making financial decisions regarding their retirement. I bet most Americans think that financial advisers are already required to act in the retirees' best interest. Unfortunately, the bad news is that that is not the state of the law today. The good news, however, is that, hopefully, if we can defeat H.R. 1090--and the President has promised to veto this bill--that situation may be about to change. At the outset, it is important to remember that this issue concerns the retirement security of all Americans. It is important that we get this right. Congress, in its wisdom--obviously, this was a previous Congress-- gave the DOL exclusive jurisdiction regarding retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In doing so, Congress recognized that retirement is different. Previous Congresses realized the importance of protecting workers and retirees by imposing a higher standard of care and loyalty upon financial advisers who offer services and sell stocks or bonds or other assets to be included in retirement plans. Again, that is because retirement is different. The basic idea of retirement plans works like this: if the average worker sets aside a small amount of wages regularly over 30 or 35 years that they are in the workforce and that amount is invested prudently and allowed to grow, then through proper investment and the miracle of compound interest, that worker will likely have a sizable nest egg upon which they can rely in retirement. Investing for retirement is also different in another context. It has grave consequences if it is done improperly or neglected. There is no second chance if you are at the end of your working life. You can't go back. This is your nest egg. It is tough to go out and get another job when you are at the age of retirement. You are out of time. So workers have a lot at stake. There are huge risks for workers if their retirement contributions over 30 years are not invested in a way that is in their best interest. They should be able to rely on the fact that their sacrifice, that their savings have been invested in a way that is in their best interest, not in the best interest of the financial adviser or the investment company. Again, however, that is not the case of the law today. Right now, most--but not all--financial advisers are often paid extra money, extra fees, a higher commission to offer a retiree or a worker particular advice or a particular product that are in the financial adviser's best interests because they carry higher fees or larger commissions, but those products and services may not be in the worker's or retiree's best interest. It is a basic law of economics. If financial advisers are paid more for recommending a particular fund over another, they will recommend that fund that they get paid more to recommend, even though it may not be in the client's best interest. That presents a classic example of conflict of interest. Now, I support rulemaking for a fiduciary standard by the DOL, and I agree that the SEC should thereafter harmonize its rules. Investment advisers should be held to a standard of care and loyalty to workers and retirees which requires that the adviser must act solely in the best interest of the worker who is investing for their retirement. However, H.R. 1090, in its current form, would harm people saving for retirement by blocking the DOL's rule and allowing financial advisers to act in their own financial interest instead of their client's best interests. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. All investment advisers must be held to an essential standard of care and loyalty when providing advice to their clients, particularly clients who are saving for retirement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, the heart of this matter is that my amendment just changes the standard upon which that advice needs to be made. The advice that we have in financial advisers giving to retirees and workers who desperately need the opportunity to invest, you know, these IRAs and retirement vehicles are a blessing to us. All it does is require that that advice be given without any conflict, that it be given in the best interest of the retiree or the worker who is making that investment. That is the only change here that is required. I think it is a good change. It is a necessary change. It is one for the American worker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding landmark to community health and welfare. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the nation's Community Health Center program Community Health Centers (CHC) are the family doctor to over 23 million Americans and, as such, are the largest network of primary care providers in the country. The CHC model is distinguished by its comprehensive range of health services, recognizing the particular needs and characteristics of the communities they serve. Community Health Centers are located exclusively in medically-underserved areas, providing needed care for communities and populations that do not have adequate access to care. Community involvement in CHCs is guaranteed by the requirement that Federal Qualified Health Centers must have governing boards of directors that have patients of the center holding at least 51% of the board seats. In the 8th Congressional District of Massachusetts we are particularly proud because the nation's first community health center opened in December 1965 on Columbia Point in Boston's Dorchester neighborhood. Drs. Jack Geiger and Count Gibson of Tufts Medical School founded the Columbia Point Health Center in order to meet the needs of the residents of an isolated public housing project, cut off from the City's health resources. Drs. Geiger and Gibson opened a rural center shortly thereafter in the Delta region of Mississippi. From that start, the community health center program expanded throughout the country. In 1985, Columbia Point Health Center joined with the Neponset Health Center to form Harbor Health Services, Inc. And in 1990, the Columbia Point Health Center moved into a new building and was renamed Geiger Gibson Community Health Center in honor of the founders of the national movement. Mr. Speaker, there are now over 1,270 community health centers providing services at 9,000 sites across the country. CHCs have become the primary source of medical, dental, behavioral health, substance abuse treatment, social services and other community health services for neighborhoods and rural communities that would otherwise be inadequately served. And CHCs have also provided employment and career opportunities for thousands of local residents. Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago it all began in Dorchester, Massachusetts. I am proud to rise today to recognize and honor what has become a national model for providing services to our country's underserved areas and urge my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the efforts of our Community Health Centers.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 136, the Gold Star Fathers Act of 2015, bipartisan legislation introduced by my colleague, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, last January and cosponsored by Senators Sherrod Brown of Rhode Island and Susan Collins of Maine. This bill passed the United States Senate by unanimous consent in May of this year and was favorably reported out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in July. This legislation also has bipartisan support in the House in the form of identical legislation, H.R. 1222, introduced by my colleague, Representative Elizabeth Esty, of Connecticut. In appreciation of the sacrifices that Gold Star families have made on behalf of our grateful Nation, the Gold Star Fathers Act would extend the 10-point hiring preference for Federal civilian jobs to the fathers of servicemembers who have been permanently disabled or who lost their lives while serving on Active Duty. This would be identical to the Federal hiring preference that has been available to our Gold Star Mothers since 1948. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is reflective of the immense gratitude that we hold as a nation for the parents of our fallen and disabled heroes. It also recognizes the profound sacrifice that our Gold Star families continue to endure every day. It is a burden that is shouldered by the very few on behalf of the entire Nation. Back in South Boston, my mother-in-law, Helen Shaughnessy, originally Helen Bailey, is a Gold Star sister. She lost her brother, Arnie Bailey, in April of 1944 on his first jump over the Rhine close to the end of the Second World War in Europe. I know that their family continues to carry that pain and that burden each and every day. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support Ms. Esty in her efforts, along with Senator Wyden and others in the Senate, to support S. 136. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty). I would like to introduce and welcome her remarks. She is the lead sponsor of this bill in the House and has been a true champion on behalf of veterans all over this country.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 313, the Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act of 2015. I introduced this bipartisan legislation in January of this year, and I am proud that it has now gained the support of over 30 Democratic and Republican Members of Congress. I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), for his remarks and his support of this bill. At the outset, I would also like to thank Chairman Jason Chaffetz and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for their leadership in bringing H.R. 313 to the floor. I would also like to thank many of the veterans groups and Federal unions and workforce organizations that have joined together to endorse this legislation. They include the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and the 31 unions and member organizations that make up the Federal Postal Coalition. Let me also commend Jennifer Hemingway of the majority staff for the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Lena Chang of the Democratic staff for our committee for their great work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, the Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act will address a problem faced by many wounded warriors who are transitioning to civilian life through new careers in the Federal workforce. Currently, a first-year Federal employee will begin his or her career with zero sick leave in the event of a medical event. That is because under current law, full-time Federal employees only earn 4 hours of paid sick leave for each pay period that they work. Obviously, starting from the beginning, they will have zero balance in their sick leave bank--with a maximum of 104 hours of paid sick leave that is available per year. Nevertheless, new employees start with zero. While Federal workers are able to carry over unused annual sick leave from year to year, they begin their first year on the job with no sick leave whatsoever. Now, this lack of initial leave for newly hired Federal workers is particularly burdensome on those employees who are also wounded warriors. These employees need to make regular visits to the VA to seek medical treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and other service-connected disabilities, and they are quickly forced to burn up any sick leave that they do accrue during their first year at a Federal agency. Several wounded warriors who have transitioned to the Federal workforce following their tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and other assignments have highlighted this difficulty during discussions with me and my staff. These workers reported that, without sufficient leave during their first year on the job, they were routinely faced with the difficult choice between having to take a day off work without pay or simply skipping their scheduled VA appointments altogether. Some wounded warriors reported that the closest VA facility to their job was located a 2- or 3-hour drive away. As additionally noted by the Federal Managers Association: ``Young men and women struggle with available leave as they attempt to keep service-related, medically-necessary appointments, which puts undue stress on both managers and their Federal employees as they try to meet their Congressionally-mandated missions and goals.'' Mr. Speaker, we must afford our wounded warriors the flexibility to receive medical care as they transition to serving our Nation in a new capacity, through a Federal civilian job. The Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act would do just that. This bill will provide first-year Federal employees who have a VA disability rating of 30 percent or greater with 104 hours of wounded warrior leave from the moment they begin their Federal workforce careers. This includes eligible new hires at our Nation's largest employer of veterans--the Defense Department--as well as the United States Postal Service. H.R. 313 also recognizes that these dedicated Federal workers will have accumulated up to 104 hours of traditional sick leave by the end of their first year on the job. That is why the bill also provides that any unused wounded warrior leave would not carry over beyond the second year. The Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act will also provide critical importance, given that the most recent Federal data on veterans employment indicates that Federal agencies are hiring a growing number of veterans each year. In fiscal year 2014, nearly 60,000, or 33.2 percent, of new hires at Federal agencies were veterans. That is an increase of 9.2 percent over fiscal year 2009. With the number of our young people who have served multiple tours of duty--three, four, five tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan--this is especially important. Approximately 16,000 of newly Federal employees were wounded warriors with a disability rating of 30 percent or greater. Again, I am thankful to Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Cummings, and Mr. Connolly. And, also, I want to thank Mr. Tester. When we sent this bill over to the Senate looking for a cosponsor in the Senate, Senator Tester was quick to step up and take on this fight in the Senate. I want to thank him for his work on this bill in the Senate side. In closing, I urge all our Members to vote in favor of H.R. 313. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 565, the Federal Vehicle Repair Cost Savings Act, introduced by Senator Peters of Michigan. I would also like to recognize Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan for his good work on this legislation. S. 565 passed the United States Senate by unanimous consent last month. With today's House passage, it can go straight to the President's desk for his signature. The Federal Vehicle Repair Cost Savings Act would require the head of each Federal agency to encourage the use of remanufactured vehicle components if doing so would reduce costs while maintaining high quality. The intent behind this bill is to raise awareness of the option of using remanufactured parts and inform agency fleet managers of this cost-saving option. I would note that the bill encourages the heads of Federal agencies to use remanufactured parts, but the decision ultimately to do so would remain at the discretion of fleet managers. According to a March 2013 Government Accountability Office report, Federal agencies spent about $1 billion on vehicle repair and maintenance in 2011. The report also found that remanufactured vehicle components tend to be much less expensive. For example, the Postal Service and the Department of Interior informed GAO that they rely on remanufactured vehicle components to reduce costs. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense piece of legislation that seeks to save taxpayer dollars and better ensure that the Federal Government is purchasing high-quality products. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the legislation under consideration, H.R. 3089, the Grant Oversight and New Efficiency Act, was introduced by my friend Mr. Walberg of Michigan in July of this year; and it was reported out of the House Oversight Committee with the support of Mrs. Brenda Lawrence, also of Michigan, this month. This bill would require one-time reports from Federal agencies on expired grants. As noted earlier by Mr. Walberg, in a report by the Government Accountability Office, Federal agencies do not always close out expired grants properly. In fact, GAO has found that in 2011, nearly $800 million in undisbursed balances remained in expired grant accounts. That money could be returned to the Treasury and spent on any number of pressing priorities here in the House and Senate. In particular, Mr. Walberg's bill, H.R. 3089, would require agencies to report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Congress on grants that have expired and whether they have undisbursed balances. The bill would also require agencies to make recommendations on which grants should be closed out immediately as well as explain why certain grants were not properly closed out to begin with. I commend the Representatives from Michigan, both Mr. Walberg, our lead sponsor on this bill, and Mrs. Lawrence, for their work on this bipartisan bill. This is a commonsense, good government measure that every Member should support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for leading this debate on our behalf, and I want to thank her for the great work she has been doing on all of this. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3461, legislation to approve the Iran nuclear agreement. While I will admit this deal is not absolutely perfect, I believe it does offer the best chance of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Mr. Speaker, the Iran nuclear agreement is an opportunity, the likes of which we could not even imagine a few years ago: a chance to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and to do so without engaging in another costly and bloody war. Now, I did not reach this conclusion lightly. I did so only after closely examining the deal and the classified and unclassified supplementary documents. I also spoke to experts and numerous officials who were closely involved in the talks, including one of the IAEA inspectors, and carefully weighed the arguments from both sides. While I still have some concerns, I simply do not see an alternative that will constrain Iran's nuclear program and maintain the global cooperation needed to enforce these limits. Mr. Speaker, the plain language of this agreement explicitly states that ``under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.'' There is no waiver, no exception, no qualifier or sunset. Iran may never have a nuclear weapon, period. That is what the agreement says. Now, of course, nobody believes a simple affirmation alone is enough, especially with Iran's history, which is why this deal imposes tough limitations on Iran and includes safeguards to better ensure that if Iran cheats, we will know and can respond by reimposing economic sanctions, or, as the President has indicated, the military option remains on the table. I want to note some of the limitations that are in the agreement. Iran must cut its low enriched uranium stockpile by 96 percent. It currently has 7,500 kilograms of low enriched uranium. It has to cut that to 300 kilograms--from 7,500 to 300. Iran must cut its centrifuge capacity by over 66 percent--from 19,000 centrifuges to 6,104; and of the 5,000 it may run, all must be the lower efficiency, first generation centrifuges. The reactor core in the heavy water plant at Arak must be removed and filled with concrete, making it unusable for nuclear weapons, and it must be redesigned for nuclear energy purposes only. Mr. Speaker, we all know that this deal is not based on trust. In fact, it assumes Iran will try to cheat. That is why the inspections regime is so intrusive. In addition, IAEA inspectors will have full access to all declared sites and use of the most advanced technology available. It also subjects Iran's entire nuclear fuel cycle to inspections, from uranium mining to waste disposal and every stage in between. No other member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is subject to that scrutiny, nor would we be inspecting Iran's whole fuel cycle if we trusted them. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about something. The United States did not negotiate this agreement alone. This was a joint effort with the UK, Germany, France, China, Russia, and the EU. Those countries are in a more vulnerable position than the United States if Iran should violate this agreement. Now, any observer of foreign affairs will tell you that in recent years it has been next to impossible to get this mix of countries to agree on anything, much less a deal with such significance as this. Yet that is what we have here--an agreement that major global powers back and are ready to enforce the agreement. And if we sabotage it now, if we are the only country to say ``no'' to diplomacy and ``yes'' to military action, we may very well do so alone. Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, this agreement is not perfect. However, no one got everything they wanted in this agreement. For every critic who says the P5+1 gave away too much, there is one in Iran who says the Iranians did the same. This deal has vast potential, but its success will ultimately hinge on its implementation. It would be better use of our energies to focus on ensuring that this deal succeeds and that the IAEA has what is necessary to carry out its mandate. One final point, if some of the critics are right and we eventually have to resort to a military option with or without our international neighbors, I think it would be much better for us to have had hundreds of inspectors on the ground inspecting nuclear and nonnuclear facilities.

Mr. LYNCH. It would be far better for us and our international allies to have had international inspectors--hundreds--on the ground in Iran, so that if we do have to take military action, we have that information, we have that intelligence, so that any military action that eventually is necessary will be much more effective. But I agree that this agreement is our best chance, this opportunity for diplomacy, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 675, the Veterans' Compensation Cost of Living Adjustment Act and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. This is an important bill that provides a critical cost-of-living increase for the service-connected disability compensation that our disabled veterans need and deserve. In addition, it makes other needed changes to a number of programs administered by the VA to ensure that they better meet the needs of our veterans and their families. I am pleased that H.R. 675, as amended by the Veterans Affairs Committee, includes the text of my bill, H.R. 995, the ``Veterans Day Moment of Silence Act.'' This bipartisan legislation calls for two minutes of silence every Veterans Day. Its set time of 2:11 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, allows all Americans from coast to coast and Puerto Rico to come together to reflect on the service of our veterans, past and present. Generations of brave men and women have served our nation with honor: risking their lives to keep us safe and free. They deserve our support and, most of all our gratitude. Mr. Speaker, there are few words that can do justice to the magnitude of what our servicemembers have done throughout our history, and continue to do for us every day. They leave their families and loved ones behind, and go to some of the world's most dangerous places. They risk their health and their lives to serve and defend the nation we all love. I have had the honor and pleasure of meeting with some of them in my travels abroad and I am always moved by their dedication, their professionalism, and their courage. I would like to thank Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Brown for including the language of ``The Veterans Day Moment of Silence Act'' to this bill. I also wish to recognize and thank the Bendetson family who first approached me with the concept of this tribute. Daniel and Michael Bendetson, along with their father, Dr. Peter Bendetson, have worked tirelessly for years to bring this proposal to fruition. Finally, I would most like to thank all the veterans in my district and across America, in whose honor I am proud to have introduced this legislation. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support and pass H.R. 675.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to begin this discussion by saying I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). I have worked with him on other issues where we have agreed. That is not the case today. I also know that there will be Members of the majority and Members of the minority that have a different opinion than I do on this matter, and it does not mean I have less respect for them; it just means we have a difference of agreement on this one bill. Now, when I first met my wife, I was an ironworker. I worked as an ironworker for 20 years. Then I went to law school and became an attorney. Then I ran for office and became a politician. My wife says it has been one disappointment after another. When I was an ironworker, I had an opportunity to work at the General Motors facility, the auto plant in Framingham, Massachusetts. That was just before they made a decision to close that plant, close a couple in Michigan, and move them over the border to Mexico. I have seen the effect that that has had on local communities where that has happened. I oppose this bill because I want a stronger America. That is why I oppose this bill. Our trade agreements negotiated under fast track have had a continual pattern of exporting American jobs overseas. That is just the fact of the matter. Now, you might be surprised that a former union president, a Democrat, an ironworker would oppose a bill. The object of this bill is to provide public assistance to workers after we send their jobs overseas. That is the object of this bill. When their jobs are exported, we will give them public assistance and some training for a new job. I oppose this bill; some people find that surprising, but I can only draw on my own experience. I always felt that I would rather have my Representative fighting for my job than coming up with a public assistance program to support me after I lost my job. That is why I am here on the floor today. I think American workers want their Representative in the fight. They want them in the fight to protect their jobs, not to give them public assistance after they ship their jobs overseas. That is as simple as I can describe. I think I understand the American people. I think I understand the American worker. I have been there, and this does not do the job. If you want to read this bill, you have to go to a secret location here on the Capitol Grounds. I had to give up my cell phone and my iPad. I had to give them my pen. I was not allowed to bring any paper. I can't take notes. They bring in a big box with the bill, and they sat it down in front of me, and they let me read it. They do not allow me to talk to the people who sent me here about what is in that bill. That is not right. That is undemocratic. There is a reason they don't let me talk about that bill to the people I represent and everybody else in this Chamber--because they would not like it. They would tell you: Do not pass this bill; it is going to cost our jobs and our kids' jobs. The people who are drafting this bill, though, as the gentlewoman from New York spoke, are industries like the chemical industry, the pharmaceutical industry. They are all drafting sections of this bill; yet the people who represent American workers are kept out of the process. Later on, we will be able to vote up or down, but we cannot fix this bill. Unlike every other bill that comes to this floor that we are allowed to amend, we cannot fix this bill. We have to vote it up or down, and that is not right. That is not right. If we see a problem, we should be able to fix it. I was listening to a guy the other day talk about the fact that we shouldn't really worry about not having manufacturing jobs in America anymore, that we have a service economy. He described it as a Starbucks economy. Now, I love Starbucks as much as the next guy; I like my grande latte, but the Starbucks economy does not work unless you have someone who can walk into that store and pay $4 for a cup of coffee. This is not good for America. I was watching that Roosevelt show last night on PBS, and they talked about, after the Second World War, the world called America ``the arsenal of democracy'' because our industrial might, our manufacturing capacity, allowed us to marshal resources and save the world. We have continually exported millions and millions and millions of American manufacturing jobs in the industrial capacity.

Mr. LYNCH. I am just getting wound up. They referred to America after the Second World War as the arsenal of democracy because we did save the world. Today, when the world looks at us after we have exported millions of manufacturing jobs and industrial capacity overseas, I think they look at America and say: You know, in America, they can make us a good cup of coffee if you can pay $4 a cup. This is not the direction we should be sending America. I have the utmost respect for my friends on the other side of aisle. Democrats on my side of the aisle are going to support this. We have to get America's Representatives, Members of Congress, back in this fight. We have abnegated our responsibility. We negotiate a lot of complicated bills on this floor and over in the Senate, nuclear regulatory issues, bankruptcy--very complicated issues--war and peace; yet we can't negotiate this trade deal. We have got to leave it up to multinational corporations. That is flat wrong. America wants their Representatives back in the fight on this issue. Let's vote this bill down; let's get rid of TPA and let the American workers have a voice on the floor of this House of Representatives on this bill.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will try not to repeat the arguments that the gentlewoman has put forward, but I do have to say that there is about 8 pounds of bill over there at a secure location, as I spoke of before, that I can't talk about it in public because I am precluded from doing that. I would violate the rules of the House and the classified status that has been accorded that material, so I can't really talk about it. I can say that it is very complicated. Like I say, there is probably, I am guessing, about 8 pounds of document there that you have to read. It is largely aspirational. In other words, I will paraphrase without disclosing any classified information. It largely says the parties will aspire or engage to do blah, blah, blah. It is largely unenforceable. Here is another part of the problem. We are negotiating the biggest multinational trade agreement in the history of the United States. You have got some countries that I think are reliable partners and that we have a history with. Canada, even before free trade agreements, we had trade agreements with Canada. They have the rule of law there. It is not a race to the bottom with Canada or with Australia or with New Zealand. I think we have rule of law established in those countries. But we also, in the same agreement, are negotiating with Vietnam. I went to Vietnam not long ago, and when we talked issues, I sat down across the table from a bunch of Communist generals. They run the country. They have problems with prison labor. They have problems with child labor. They have serious problems with environmental standards in that country. Malaysia, do you know what the minimum wage in Malaysia is? Zero. They do that to try to attract companies. The situation in Chile and Peru, we have organizers that have tried to work on behalf of workers who have been killed in those countries. There is no rule of law established in those countries where we have had success in enforcing our agreements. That has been a major problem. So we are going to ask the American worker to compete with workers in Vietnam, who get, I think it is 90 cents an hour, 97 cents an hour--I don't want to sell them short--97 cents an hour in a country that has had a history of major problems, as I have spoken about. Malaysia, the same thing. We can't enforce our agreements. And on the issue of who has drafted this bill, it is my understanding that the chemical industry provisions in that TPP were drafted by the chemical industry. They like it. They got exactly what they wanted. The same thing with these other industries. And again, why is it a national secret that I can't talk about a bill that is going to affect every American citizen today? And not only that, it is going to affect their sons and daughters. There is a reason that our kids coming out of college can't get jobs. We have got to wake up. I told this story before. I went to Korea recently, with JPAC. It was about the Korean war and recovering our sons and daughters who fought in that country and are still there. But while I was there, I looked for American cars because we had passed a free trade agreement with Korea. We were there for days. I had two young Navy lieutenants with me. I said, Let's all look for American cars. We saw two American cars in the time we were there in Korea. It is a big industrial country. They have got plenty of traffic. We saw hundreds of thousands of cars. I saw two American cars: the one I was driving in from the Embassy, and the one that the Navy lieutenants were driving in behind me. They have shut us out. You go to Japan, it is pretty much the same story. I said before, you need to hire a detective to find an American car in Japan. So we have had very little success in enforcing our trade agreements overseas. We have got a lousy deal. So all I am asking is, look, I believe in--and you know what? I have to say, the EU did it right. The EU, when they negotiated with South Korea, they said: If you are going to sell cars into the EU from Korea, we want 30 percent of the components in that car to be made in the EU. And they created a lot of work for their auto parts industry. Think about it. We could do that. Congress could do that. We could maintain that, if they are going to sell a foreign car here, we want 40 percent or 50 percent of the components to be manufactured here in the United States. We would create millions of jobs in the United States. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a good thing. We would restore industrial and manufacturing capacity in the United States if Congress got back in the game. I am not against free trade. I think free trade works when it is balanced. I want somebody in there fighting for the American worker. We don't have that now. We don't have that now. Congress has abdicated its responsibility by agreeing to buy a pig in a poke because, when they bring that bill back on the floor here, we are going to have to vote up or down. You won't have the ability to change the bill like you do on every other bill that is brought on the floor of Congress. You will not have that ability. Congress will have abdicated its responsibility to represent the people that sent them here. Free trade can work. Let's have a fair deal for the American worker. That is all I am asking for. If there were a fair deal for the American worker that I could read and talk to my constituents about--you know, I have got 727,514 bosses back in Massachusetts, and they sent me here to do my job, and I am trying to do that on their behalf. I think that every other Member of Congress is trying to do their job as well. We can't do that if TPA goes through. We need to give the American worker a voice, and we can do that today. Let's vote this stuff down. Let's talk to the President. He is a good man, wants to create American jobs. Let's have an open debate. It should not be a secret. It should not be a national secret about these agreements we are having with multinational corporations. We should not be afraid that the American people might find out what is going on here. We should be proud of what we are doing here. We should want it plastered all over the front pages of the newspapers in this country. We should be proud of our work here. I can't be proud of what is going on right now, and so I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Vote this down. Let's change this system to a transparent system that the American people can be assured that their Representatives in Congress are doing the right thing.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. What is that? No, no, no. The job I lost--you were talking to people--the job I lost, 2,700 workers lost at the GM plant, those plants were reopened in Mexico.