C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the AIF, Infrastructure Fund for Afghanistan was created by this Congress in the FY 2011 House-passed authorization bill. It was again fully authorized in the FY 2012 House- passed authorization bill. We support the objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, including the Afghan Security Forces Fund. This is a counterinsurgency tool that General Petraeus placed the highest priority on when he recommended that we create the AIF in place of the CERP, the Commanders Emergency Response Program. So we did that. We took money from the CERP, put the money into the AIF as part of General Petraeus's counterinsurgency program. So we think this is not a good amendment, and we are opposed to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. First, I want to compliment the gentleman from Colorado for having made a very, very eloquent statement that really is factual and gets right to the point. But the reason I rise also is earlier in the day, just in case there are Members here tonight that weren't there early today, I did suggest that I might say this again and again and again during this debate. This subcommittee that recommends this bill in a very nonpolitical way, in a very careful way, reviewed and analyzed all of the requests that we had from the administration in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2012 appropriations for national defense. The original recommendation, we reduced by $9 billion, and I think that is larger than the gentleman's whale, but it is a substantial cut and it was made without any regard to politics. We were extremely careful not to affect the war fighter. We were extremely careful not to affect our Nation's readiness. This is not a good amendment, and I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair, I submit the following table on H.R. 2219, a bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY.006

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, the gentleman's amendment supports the position of the subcommittee, and I support the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the former chairman of this subcommittee and the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I want to thank Mr. Dicks for being such a good partner and working in a bipartisan way to guarantee that we did the best we could with the money we had available to provide for the national defense. I would say again, we have not had any impact adversely on any of our troops and we have not adversely affected the readiness of our country, while we have taken some of those slush funds and some of those wasteful funds, we did take some of those, in order to achieve the $9 billion in savings that we were required to achieve. The bill is lengthy. As you can hear from the various speakers, there are many, many, many parts of this bill. The specific details of the bill have been available for over 2 weeks so that Members have had every opportunity to study the bill. In order to get where we are, it took a lot of work, because, number one, we had to finish last year's bill. That was no fault of Mr. Dicks. He worked hard as chairman last year to produce another very good bipartisan bill, cooperating totally with us on the minority side, the minority at that time. But we didn't get that bill to the floor. I wish that we had, but it didn't quite make it. So this year we finished the work for FY 2011, and now this is the bill for FY 2012. Again, it is a strong, bipartisan, no-politics good defense bill. But in order to get to this point, to get where we are, required tremendous dedication on the part of all of the members of the subcommittee, as well and very specifically as well as the staff. The professional staff of our Defense Subcommittee is very, very special and works extremely hard. I would like to call attention to that staff. On the minority side, Paul Juola, who also worked on the majority side at one point, and Becky Leggieri. On the majority staff, Brooke Boyer, Walter Hearne, Jennifer Miller, Tim Prince, Adrienne Ramsay, Ann Reese, Megan Rosenbusch, Paul Terry, B.G. Wright, Sherry Young, and the chief of staff, Tom McLemore. They have done a tremendous job. I know that oftentimes when the House finished its business and Members would retire to their respective homes, staff stayed and they did the analysis that had to be done to achieve the savings that we achieved, but also to make sure that we accomplished what had to be accomplished to provide for our troops, to provide for their welfare, to provide for the readiness of the Nation. I said in my opening remarks there were other items, other things, other parts of this bill that I would like to have increased. I would like to have been able to increase the pay raise that goes to our military. The money just wasn't there. But we did insist on funding the full 1.6 percent, which doesn't sound like a lot. At least it's not a reduction. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. We're not going to vote on this bill tonight. We will read this bill--it's my understanding now from leadership--for amendment under the 5-minute rule the week after next and we'll be prepared to, again, in a bipartisan way, deal with any issues that might come up at that time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like to advise the Chair that I have no further speakers. I do have a brief closing statement after Mr. Dicks, when he is prepared to close.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I first would like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the former chairman of the subcommittee, for the complete cooperation that we had with each other in preparing this very nonpartisan, nonpolitical Defense appropriations bill for 2012. The base budget of this bill is $530 billion, which is $9 billion below the President's budget request. It was not easy to find the savings, but we were determined to find those savings without having any adverse effect on the warfighter or the readiness of our Nation. The base bill is $530 billion. In addition to that, rather than having a supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, we included a section that is referred to as OCO, the Overseas Contingency Operation, which is $119 billion. The bill includes no earmarks for Members' districts. The bill contains no money for Libya because none was requested. The administration did not request money for Libya. We asked numerous times what their plans were, how long it might take, what the cost might be. We did not get an answer until just very recently. And they said, No, they did not request any funding, and they were basically going to make up the balances by a reprogramming. They would not ask for a supplemental, but they would reprogram some of the existing funds. It's a good bill. I wish it had more money in it for certain areas. I would like to have seen a much larger pay raise. We provided the necessary funding for the 1.6 percent pay raise for the military, which was the authorized level and the requested level, but we just had to find that $9 billion. The staff had to work extremely hard to make sure that we did not have an adverse effect on any of our soldiers or our overall readiness. The bill provides $32 billion for the Defense Health Program. We understand the needs of our soldiers that are wounded. There are, unfortunately, too many of them. We have provided what we think is adequate money to care for whatever their medical requirements, their medical needs are. And it includes considerable research into medical issues. The research is important because a lot of the injuries that came out of Iraq and we are seeing come out of Afghanistan are such that in previous wars, the troop would probably not have survived. But because of advancements in medical care, because of the research, because of advancements in medicines, because of the ability to remove the casualty from the battlefield quickly and get to a hospital quickly, we're saving the lives of many of our troops that would probably not have survived in previous wars. We include funding for the construction of 10 Navy ships. We include money for 32 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. We include $3.3 billion for 28 F-18 Super Hornets and 12 EA-18 Growlers, $2.8 billion for 116 H-60 Blackhawk helicopters, and $699 million for the Reaper UAV, which is an advancement of the Predator. I'm trying not to go into too much detail because it is a very lengthy bill. The reductions that we made in order to achieve the $9 billion in savings, we took favorable contract pricing adjustments, contract and schedule delays resulting in fiscal year 2012 savings, unjustified cost increases, or funding requested ahead of the anticipated or historical underexecution of contracts, rescissions of unneeded prior year funds, and reductions that were authorized in the House-passed 2012 National Defense Authorization Act under the chairmanship of Chairman McKeon. Specific reductions include $435 million in savings from those contract and production delays in the AMRAAM system. We will provide for the Record the details of all of the areas where we took the savings. All in all, it is a good bill for the money that we had available. There are things that we would have added. We would have increased the military pay raise. We just didn't have the money. So we went to the authorized level. There's much more to be said that will be said as we read this bill for amendments, which will probably not happen now until we come back after next week's recess. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another very important member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to a very distinguished senior member of the Defense Appropriations Committee and also chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very important member of the Defense Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill (H.R. 2219) and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank my friend and the chairman for yielding me this time because I think it is important to stress the importance of the Boehner resolution. Especially on page 4 and page 7 of the resolution, it deals specifically with the Constitution and the constitutional responsibility of the administration and the Congress to work together, especially in matters of national security. As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as my colleague has said, my responsibility is to provide for the funding for any military operation that is approved by the Commander in Chief and approved by the Congress. On the matter of Libya, on April 1, I sent a letter to the President, trying to exercise my responsibilities as chairman--a conciliatory letter, actually--expressing support for our troops but asking certain questions: How long do you think this will last? How much do you think it will cost? How much of a future commitment have we made? What will be the source of the funding for this operation? Here, more than 2 months later, this official request from the Appropriations Committee still remains unanswered by the administration. That's just not right. The Constitution is pretty clear. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, in part, reads, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.'' So far, on the Libya issue, this article I, section 9 has been totally ignored. It's just not right. That's a violation, in my opinion, and contravenes the Constitution, itself. When I asked for that information, the only thing I got on the cost of this Libyan operation was in bits and pieces. We have added it, and we have come to about $750 million already spent on the Libyan mission. They've not confirmed that, but we have put together, with our own addition, bits and pieces on that. Again, we have received no reply whatsoever. What I'm wondering is: Where is the money to pay for the Libyan operation coming from? What account is it coming from? Is it coming out of personnel costs--soldiers' pay? Is it coming out of medical care? Is it coming out of the training for our troops? What accounts are being used? We have a right and an obligation under the Constitution to know the answer to that. Speaker Boehner's resolution calls very, very sharp attention to that issue, so I think it is important that the House passes the Boehner resolution to let the President know that we are not going to allow him to ignore the Constitution any further when it comes to war powers, when it comes to spending for the welfare of our troops, when it comes to appropriating money for the defense of our Nation and for the defense of our allies. Madam Speaker, I do ask that the letter that I sent to the President, which has remained unanswered for more than 2 months, be included at this point in the Record so that my colleagues can see that it was a very, very legitimate and a very conciliatory request, basically an offer to support our troops in any legitimate activity. So we are still waiting. We are standing by, hoping that we do hear from the President very soon, maybe shortly after we pass the Boehner resolution. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, April 1, 2011. President Barack Obama, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Recent events across northern Africa and the Middle East demonstrate the powerful effect that the prospect of self-government and basic human rights can have on an oppressed population. Governments have fallen and nations have changed, all in the name of freedom. Operation Odyssey Dawn (now Unified Protector), based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, is another chapter in this remarkable story that history is writing before us. The Members of the House Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations stand ready to support our brave men and women in uniform as they carry out their mission, but it is essential that we know precisely what that mission is, and what role U.S. troops have in achieving that mission. For example, enforcement of a no-fly-zone is one thing, but the use of AC-130 gunships and A-10 aircraft denote an entirely different battle. And without knowing what goals we hope to achieve, our long-term commitment is unclear. Indeed, as history has taught us, without defined goals or objectives the probability of an open-ended campaign increases. As our nation continues to struggle through the current fiscal crisis, an exit strategy seems all the more prudent. There was, however, little to no consultation with Congress prior to these actions, and almost two weeks after our first engagement, many of these concerns remain unaddressed. The Department of Defense has indicated that through March 28, they spent approximately $550 million in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn; and they expect to spend at a minimum another $40 million a month as we continue to support the now NATO-led Operation Unified Protector. This assumes a reduced U.S. role, which could change significantly if NATO requires additional support. It was also made clear that there would be no additional funds requested by your Administration, either in the form of a supplemental request or a budget amendment. In fact, you stated that the costs of this mission could be paid for out of previously appropriated funds. As this Committee works to finish fiscal year 2011 and begins work on fiscal year 2012, I feel it is imperative that we know where you believe these funds will come from. Based on the above Department of Defense rate, costs for fiscal year 2011 could reach $800 million, and depending on the length of our commitment, another $500 million in fiscal year 2012. I do not need to remind you that the Department of Defense fiscal year 2012 request is already $13 billion below where it was estimated it would be just a year ago--the reduction taken in the name of efficiencies. As the nation's military continue to serve in harm's way, I feel it is imperative we proceed with complete openness and transparency. I pledge that I will continue to do everything I can to support these soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen, as I have done throughout my career, and I ask for your help and support in doing the same. Sincerely, C. W. Bill Young, Chairman, Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Colonel Robert ``Kirk'' Lawrence for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to the United States of America. Colonel Lawrence will retire from active military duty in May 2011 after 30 distinguished years of service to the United States Army. Colonel Lawrence was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Air Defense Artillery following his graduation from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1981. He has served in the 82nd Airborne Division, the United States Army Air Defense Artillery School, 1st Cavalry Division, 4th Infantry Division, III Corps, V Corps, United States Army Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Colonel Lawrence assumed command of the 69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade in Giebelstadt, Germany in 2003. In 2005, he was hand selected to serve as the Executive Officer to the Commander, Allied Land Component Command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in Heidelberg. Afterwards, Colonel Lawrence was assigned as the Deputy Chief of Staff to the United States Army European Command. In 2008, he was assigned as the Executive Officer to the Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army European Command. Within these assignments, Colonel Lawrence has successfully commanded every unit from a Battery to a Brigade in the United States Army. He is a decorated combat veteran and has been awarded the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit and the Bronze Star Medal. Mr. Speaker, It has been a pleasure to work with Colonel Lawrence over the last decade. Twice he has served as the United States Army Congressional Budget Liaison Chief. Both times while in this position, Colonel Lawrence has served the Army and Nation exceptionally well during a time of protracted war. He served first in 2002, after the initial attacks on September 11th 2001, Colonel Lawrence labored to man, arm and equip our Army Soldiers from one at peace to one committed in two separate wars. In January of 2009, he returned to this strategic assignment and has been instrumental in significantly improving our Armed Forces equipment modernization efforts and funding critical systems affecting the Department of Defense and the Combatant Commanders everyday. As the Congressional Budget Liaison Chief, Colonel Lawrence gathered information, prepared strategies and recommended Army positions for corresponding with Congress on all appropriations issues. Additionally, he organized briefings and responded to requests for information across all appropriations for Congressional Members, their staff and the Committee Staff Directors and Professional Staff Members. Colonel Lawrence coordinated and traveled with Congressional delegations for fact-finding opportunities and education on a multitude of Army programs. The impact of his efforts will benefit the United States Army for decades to come. Throughout his time in the Capitol, Colonel Lawrence has been a trusted liaison to myself and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and has worked tirelessly to ensure that the Army had the resources it needed to fight and win our nation's wars. This Commissioned Officer has continued the traditions of the United States Army and is an American hero who has been selfless in his service to the Nation through war, peace, and personal trial. When history looks back at this leader and his legacy it will be clear that his abilities as a trainer, leader, advisor, Commander and Soldier produced the best Army in the world. Mr. Speaker, On behalf of a grateful Nation, I join my colleagues today in saying thank you to Colonel Robert ``Kirk'' Lawrence for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to this country throughout his distinguished career in the United States Army and we wish him, his wife Lisa and two sons, Jake and Adam, all the best in his well- deserved retirement.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Kent A. D. Clark for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to the United States of America. Lieutenant Colonel Clark will retire from active military duty in May 2011 after 24 distinguished years of service to the United States Army and of those years over 43 months were spent in combat. Lieutenant Colonel Kent A. D. Clark is a resident of Florida and entered the United States Army in April 1987. He entered the Army and while serving his first enlistment decided to pursue a career in the United States Army by entering the Special Forces. He has served in every enlisted leadership position through the rank of Sergeant First Class and then pursued a career as a Commissioned Officer by attending Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia. Mr. Speaker, It has been a pleasure to work closely with Lieutenant Colonel Kent Clark over the last several years of his career. He has proven himself to be a tremendous wartime leader who demonstrated unselfish devotion to the Nation and the soldiers he led. He has been a friend and trusted advisor to my colleagues and I on the Appropriations Committee as he worked tirelessly to restore balance to a force stressed by the demands of the war on terrorism. He was instrumental in significantly improving our Armed Forces equipment modernization and funding of critical systems affecting the Department of Defense while he served here on Capitol Hill. In 2010 Kent went back to the United States Army and Represented the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army as a liaison officer with the United States Congressional Appropriations Committees for Defense and Military Construction. Prior to his retirement he was the principal point of contact for Members of Congress and staff on matters concerning the Wheel Track Combat Vehicle Program, Brigade Combat Team Modernization, and Other Procurement Army One & Three Appropriations; He provided direct interface between Congress and the Army; Integrated the Office of the Chief Army Reserve staff and Congress for all United States Army Reserve related issues and questions; Gathered information, prepared strategies and recommended Army positions for corresponding with the Congress on appropriation issues; Organized briefings and responded to requests for information across all appropriations for Congressional Members, their staff and Professional Staff Members; Coordinated Congressional travel for fact-finding opportunities and education on Army programs. The impact of his efforts will benefit the United States Army for decades to come. Lieutenant Colonel Kent A. D. Clark's observations and advice to the Army leadership have impacted the decisions to implement the most comprehensive transformation of the Army since World War II, building versatile and modular units capable of conducting a full-spectrum of operations. This Commissioned Officer has continued the traditions of the United States Army and is an American hero who has been selfless in his service to the Nation through war, peace, and personal trial. His performance and accomplishments throughout his long and distinguished career have left a legacy of trained, disciplined professional leaders at all levels and care for families that is without equal. When history looks back at this leader and his legacy it will be clear that his abilities as a trainer, leader, advisor, Commander and Soldier produced the best Army in the world. Mr. Speaker, On behalf of a grateful Nation, I join my colleagues today in saying thank you to Lieutenant Colonel Kent A. D. Clark for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to this country throughout his distinguished career in the United States Army and we wish him, his wife Nicole, and his daughter Kaitlyn Grace all the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a tragic event. One year ago, next Wednesday, an oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in eleven families losing their loved ones. The explosion started what soon became the largest oil spill in United States history. It took far too long to stop this spill and the environmental and economic impacts will be felt for years to come. Twelve months later, Congress has not enacted any legislation to address the policy and management issues that contributed to the severity of last year's spill. This is unacceptable. We owe it to those who perished in the explosion, as well as those whose lives and businesses were impacted in the months that followed, to address the deficiencies in current federal policy. That is why I am reintroducing the SAFEGUARDS Act, legislation I drafted last year to prevent and respond to future oil spills. I was not surprised that a report by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (Oil Spill Commission) highlighted the need for the changes I recommend, as the measure was developed following a series of meetings and regular phone calls with the on-the-ground incident commanders, local research teams and community emergency response personnel. It is my hope that the solutions put forth in this measure will be included in a wider legislative response to ensure that we impose rigorous safety standards on any off-shore platforms, while also establishing a fully thought out plan to respond to future disasters. As I said last Congress, an uncontrolled discharge of oil is truly a worst-case scenario that oil companies and the federal government should be required to have an established plan for. While the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has established specific safeguards to take into account the effects that drilling has on our environment, BP was permitted categorical exclusions from these requirements. No oil company should be exempt from addressing the environmental impact that their drilling activities impose. The SAFEGUARDS Act will ensure that NEPA requirements are not ignored again by, first, prohibiting categorical exclusions from NEPA, and second, extending the time period regulatory agencies have to review oil explorations proposals. Regulatory agencies currently have only a 30-day period to review extensive and intricate drilling proposals, however this bill will give regulatory agencies up to 150 days to ensure exploration plans are properly reviewed. Not only was BP granted exemptions from environmental standards, they were also allowed to move forward without a prepared response plan for the failure of the blowout preventer. As recommended by the Oil Spill Commission ``oil spill response plans should be required to include detailed plans for source control [which] demonstrate that an operator's containment technology is immediately deployable and effective.'' The SAFEGUARDS Act would require all oil spill response plans to account for a true worst possible scenario, including the uncontrolled discharge of oil resulting from the failure of a blowout preventer or other containment devices. The oil disaster in the Gulf has also brought much attention to the leadership and organization of the response and containment efforts currently in place. While the Coast Guard is ultimately responsible for leading the government's response to an oil spill in America's coastal waters, they are not required to approve oil spill response plans submitted by oil rigs. Instead, each rig was only required to submit their spill response plans to the now disbanded Minerals Management Service, an agency with many well-documented problems administering rig safety standards. The Oil Spill Commission notes that ``oil spill response plans, including source-control measures, should be subject to interagency review and approval by the Coast Guard.'' The SAFEGUARDS Act will make this a requirement for all current and future oil rigs, as well as establish the Commandant of the Coast Guard as the National Incident Commander to oversee the federal government's response to large oil spills in coastal waters. Finally, the SAFEGUARDS Act will address some of the inadequacies in federal response efforts highlighted by last year's spill. The framework of the National Contingency Plan, which is the federal government response plan for all oil spills, has not been updated since 1994. The SAFEGUARDS Act will require the response plan to be updated at least every five years and to have unique plans for responding to oil spills in our coastal waters. Further, this bill will require the EPA to begin monitoring water quality within forty-eight hours after an oil spill is discovered. It is important for the public to have accurate information about how our water, our wildlife and our beaches are being affected as quickly as possible. After finally stopping the flow of oil we now need to address the systematic breakdowns that led to the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. The SAFEGUARDS Act presents commonsense solutions to help prevent a disaster of this magnitude from ever happening again, and improves the federal response in the event it ever does. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this measure. The Congress must get to work on oil spill response legislation; we owe it to the American people and the entire Gulf Coast.