Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this is simply a good government amendment that is reflected in a different form in the Senate Transportation- Housing bill. I am seeking to provide a similar provision in the House bill.

This was offered in a different form yesterday. There were objections to it that were sustained. We have worked with the Parliamentarian to overcome those objections.

This provision refers to none of the funds available in this act may be used for incentive payments pursuant to a particular regulatory provision to contractors for contracts that are behind schedule under the terms of another regulatory provision or over the contract amount as indicated in a standard form used in contracting.

That is standard form 33, box 20, subject to modification in standard form 30, box 14--sorry, box 12. This will rein in contractors who are late and working over budget and prevent them from getting extra payments.

We are simply speaking about extra payments here, payments they would not normally be receiving, except for the fact that they are asking for them and claim some entitlement to them. Too often, the government engages in waste, fraud, and abuse with contracting. This will help to rein that in.

I respectfully ask for the support of my colleagues on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Leadership Osceola County as they celebrate their 25th anniversary.

Whereas, the mission of Community Vision is to bring people and resources together to achieve the vision of Osceola County as a progressive community that provides the highest quality of life to residents and visitors;

Whereas, Community Vision has worked very hard since its inception to succeed in its mission and to identify the role of individuals and organizations in achieving its vision;

Whereas, Community Vision has focused on key issues through positive projects, programs, and collaborative activities in order to bring the public and leadership together to move together toward shared community goals and objectives;

Whereas, Leadership Osceola County is an unsurpassed Community Vision leadership development program that began in 1989 and is now celebrating its 25th anniversary with more than 700 leaders graduating from the program after learning of community challenges first-hand and gaining the tools necessary to facilitate positive change within our community; and

Whereas, today, Community Vision remains focused on a shared vision for a better and brighter Osceola County tomorrow by continuing to prepare, inspire, and support leadership for the good of the public;

Whereas, the United States Representative of Florida's Ninth Congressional District is honoring, recognizing and congratulating Leadership Osceola County on its 25th Anniversary.

Now, therefore, I, Alan Grayson, U.S. Representative for Florida's Ninth Congressional District, congratulate Leadership Osceola County on its 25th Anniversary and hereby proclaim the week of June 8, 2014 as Leadership Osceola County Week in the Ninth Congressional District of Florida.

Recognizing the Contributions of Rose ``Roxy'' Marie Santiago

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month, to recognize Rose Marie Santiago. Originally from Old San Juan in Puerto Rico, Rose--or Roxy as she is known to her friends--has lived in Orlando for over 30 years. During this time she has been an active member of the Thornton Park community. She also recently started the popular dog sitting business, ``Sit Stay Walk By Roxy,'' in Orlando.

From 2006 to 2009 Roxy was a Tri-Chair Federal Club Steering Committee member for Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Now she serves on the HRC's Social Media Steering Committee. When she is not campaigning and fundraising for social causes, Roxy repairs personal computers and is a keen practitioner of yoga. She also pours wine for Barefoot Wine's local events.

Earlier in her career, Roxy was employed by such prestigious companies as Disney, where she worked for ten years. Roxy undertook many high-profile responsibilities through her position as a Guest Relations Manager at Disney, and she even acted as a personal tour guide for more than one U.S. President.

Roxy was a partner with Phish Phest Entertainment for ten years. Throughout this time she was instrumental in the organization of a series of events which helped to raise over $150,000 for various charities; the beneficiaries of these funds include Hope and Help Center of Central Florida, the HRC, and Libby's Legacy Breast Cancer Foundation. Phish Phest Entertainment also participated in various other charitable events including the Orlando Aids Walk, Smart-Ride, Come out with Pride, Headdress Ball, GayDays, Scooters 4 Hooters, and Score for Kore.

Roxy Santiago is extremely proud of what she has achieved both professionally and personally and continues to dedicate herself to these causes.

I am happy to honor Rose ``Roxy'' Marie Santiago, during LGBT Pride Month, for her contributions to the Central Florida community.

Recognizing the Contributions of Vicki Nantz

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month, to recognize Vicki Nantz. Vicki graduated from Florida State University and began a career in broadcast television. She has produced and directed hundreds of hours of programing through her work for corporate-owned media companies and on projects with renowned talent like Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and Cheryl Ladd. Although her projects were often rewarding and exciting, Vicki found most to be of little personal significance. Whether it was a talk show, newscast or documentary, the subject matter never seemed to connect with her life.

In 2007, when a young man named Ryan Skipper was murdered in Central Florida simply because he was gay, Vicki felt that it was no longer acceptable to remain silent. She and her partner, Mary Meeks, began to speak publicly about anti-gay hatred. They also began making documentaries about LGBT people in order to put real faces on the issues of hate crimes, adoption, immigration and marriage. Their first documentary was about Ryan Skipper, how he was marginalized and brutalized by his community, how he was failed by his local, state and national governments, and how our anti-gay culture was complicit in his death. The documentary helped generate attention which led to national media coverage when Ryan's killers were tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Acting as the Skipper family's spokesperson during the trial, Vicki was featured in numerous national television interviews which helped raise awareness about anti-gay hate crimes. After watching the documentary, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz referenced Ryan's murder on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2009 she invited Ryan's family to attend the White House signing of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Another of Vicki's documentaries highlighted Florida's anti-gay adoption ban set out in a 33- year-old law which was ruled unconstitutional in 2010. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) utilized the documentary statewide to educate Floridians about the discriminatory law.

As a married couple, Vicki and Mary have continued to produce documentaries on social justice issues, each of which has screened at multiple film festivals and college campuses across the country. Their films have raised awareness about critical issues and helped inspire a new generation of activists. Vicki and Mary have continued to speak out in county chambers and legislative committee rooms, to advocate for long-overdue equality, and to try to change the culture of hatred so that LGBT people can live authentic lives without the fear of violence and intolerance. They do this on behalf of Ryan Skipper and his family.

I am happy to honor Vicki Nantz, during LGBT Pride Month, for her inspiring work to raise awareness about LGBT issues in Central Florida and around the country.

Remembering the Life of William Clay Harris, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding member of the Central Florida community, William Clay Harris, Jr., who passed away on June 2, 2014 at the age of 67. He went peacefully in his home in Gotha, Florida.

Born in Hobart, Oklahoma on June 24, 1946, to the late William Clay Harris, Sr. and Alice Annabel Harris William or ``Bill'' was the oldest of their four children. He is survived by his three siblings, James Leonard Harris, Joseph Robert Harris, and Rebecca Ann Kellogg. Bill had many fond memories of his early childhood, including the adventures of his beloved family dog, Casey. He developed a love of music in high school where learned to play the trumpet which he continued to play in college. He graduated from Hobart High in 1964 and began his studies at Southwestern Oklahoma State University. After two years, he enlisted in the United States Army where he was

stationed in South Korea as part of the Army Security Agency. He served honorably in the U.S. Army for four years, after which his love of Korean culture compelled him to remain in Korea as an English teacher. He embarked on a solo backpacking trip across the country during which he mastered the Korean language and befriended many locals. He was later recruited by the Country's Ministry of Communications to teach English to a group of Korean telephone operators in Seoul. While in Seoul, he met and fell in love with his future wife of 41 years, Sang Nan Harris, who survives him. Bill would often fondly recount the story of travelling to the city of Kimhe to meet Sang's father, the late Cho Bong Young. He was humbled by his future father-in-law's hospitality and genuine kindness during their introduction.

Bill and Sang returned to Oklahoma where they were married at the First Baptist Church of Hobart on May 18, 1973. Bill continued his studies at Southwestern Oklahoma State University as part of the United States G.I. Bill. He graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Economics and a Master's in Education, while Sang earned a degree from the same institution in Accounting. The newlyweds also started growing their family which includes one daughter and two sons who survive Bill: Julie Suzanne Wade, Matthew Clay Harris, and Kelly Cho Harris.

Bill Harris began a long and successful career as a high school teacher, focusing on the subjects of Economics, History and English as a Second Language. Bill had a passion for education and helping poor and at-risk students, which led him to teach exclusively in underserved schools during his career. In 1983, the family moved from Oklahoma to Houston, Texas where Bill positively impacted the lives of countless students at Stephen F. Austin High School.

His three children remember Bill as, above all, a devoted father. He never missed a Little League game, swim meet, band concert, Boy Scout camping trip or dance recital and provided unending encouragement and support for his children's endeavors. As a father, he also stressed the importance of education and was proud to see his children succeed to become two attorneys and a medical doctor. He always put his family first.

Bill and his family moved from Houston to Orlando, Florida in 1995 in order to pursue a job opportunity for his wife, Sang, as she started her own accounting business. He taught at Evans High School, but later retired in 1998 in order to assist his wife in her growing business. He affectionately described his job title as a ``gopher'' for Sang, referring to the wide variety and high volume of tasks that the business demanded. Bill and Sang saw their three children start careers, get married and grow families of their own. Bill seamlessly transitioned from the role of father to grandfather and was blessed by the time he was able to spend with his six grandchildren. They include Harrison Campbell Wade, McKinley Annabel Wade, Emerson Olivia Wade, Thatcher Holden Wade, William Colton Harris, and Anderson Leigh Harris. He was very proud of his precious grandchildren and loved them all very much.

William Clay Harris leaves behind a legacy of kindness, devotion, and faith. He was a loving and devoted husband and father, a kind and thoughtful friend, and, above all, a man of deep faith. He attended the Metropolitan Baptist Church in Houston and the Faith Family Community Church of the Nazarene and the First Baptist Church of Central Florida in Orlando. During the final years of his life, Bill became increasingly proud of his service to his country and further strengthened his belief in Jesus Christ and His transforming grace.

I am saddened by the loss of such a valuable member of the Central Florida community and extend my heartfelt condolences to his family.

Madam Chair, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 4660) is an appropriations bill that funds various Federal Government programs and entities, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

My amendment reads as follows, ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to compel a journalist or reporter to testify about information or sources that the journalist or reporter states in a motion to quash the subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or reporter and that he regards as confidential.''

For purposes of this amendment, the definition of a ``reporter'' includes: any person, natural person, or entity who releases, reports on, or provides information of a classified or unclassified nature to a public audience or on the internet, does so on a regular basis, and receives compensation for doing so. The term ``reporter'' is a description of a profession.

For purposes of this amendment, the definition of a ``journalist'' includes: any person, natural person, or entity who releases, reports on, or provides information of a classified or unclassified nature to a public audience or on the internet, and does so on a regular or an irregular basis. The term ``journalism'' describes an act, not a profession. A person, entity, or natural person is a journalist so long as he or she is engaged in the act of journalism. An act of journalism involves the collection, analysis, description, dissemination, and/or publication of information.

James Risen, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and Glenn Greenwald meet the definitions of reporters and journalists under these definitions.

This amendment also prohibits the use of any funds made available by this Act to compel testimony from any individual who is engaged in journalism in any supporting role, such as assisting a journalist with analysis, collection, description, dissemination, and/or publication of information to a public audience.

Funds appropriated under this Act may not be used to compel testimony by journalists or reporters to reveal confidential sources.

This amendment mirrors the language supplied in other federal statutes defining journalism. For instance, the Freedom of Information Act defines a ``representative of the news media'' as ``any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(4)(A)(ii)(IIII).

This amendment also follows the spirit of the United States Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedents, which have widely and historically protected the vital newsgathering function performed by journalists. The patriot pamphleteers had no corporate affiliations, no professional societies, and no journalism degrees. The key test is whether individuals are engaged in news-related activities. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger observed that adopting a narrower definition would be ``reminiscent of the abhorred licensing system of Tudor and Stuart England--a system the First Amendment was intended to ban from this country.'' First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 801 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring).

Early Supreme Court jurisprudence recognized a broad definition of journalism, noting

that the function of the press is ``performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists.'' Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 705 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring); see also Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1932) (``The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.'')

This amendment is consistent with the holdings of several federal appellate circuits which take a functional view of journalism, defining a reporter as an individual who engages in news-related activities to disseminate information to an audience. For example, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has held that reporters should be protected based on function, rather than credentials or status. Glik v. Cunnille, 655 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2011) (``Changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw [and] news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.''); see also Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987) (``The individual claiming the privilege must demonstrate, through competent evidence, the intent to use material--sought, gathered or received--to disseminate information to the public and [] such intent existed at the inception of the newsgathering process.'').

The Second Circuit's standard, based on newsgathering function articulated in Von Bulow, was reiterated by the Ninth and D.C. Circuit Courts. See Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir. 1993); Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 21, 50 (D.D.C. 1998). A similar bar is set in the Tenth Circuit. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433, 436- 37 (10th Cir. 1977) (concluding that a documentary filmmaker was not precluded from the privilege because his mission was investigative reporting for use in preparing a documentary film, regardless of the fact that he was ``not a salaried newspaper reporter'').

Finally, this amendment is consistent with the views of First Amendment scholars, who agree that a functional definition is most appropriate. See generally Sonja R. West, Awakening the Press Clause, 58 UCLA L. Rev. 1025, 1065-66 (2011) (``[The functional] approach avoids some of the pitfalls of the definition-by-affiliation approach.''); see also Linda L. Berger, Shielding the Unmedia: Using the Process of Journalism to Protect the Journalist's Privilege in an Infinite Universe of Publication, 39 Houston L. Rev. 1371, 1407 (2003) (``[N]o patriot printer or colonial pamphleteer had a journalism degree. Certification by a government agency or by a professional group carries the possibility of de-certification based on value judgments or viewpoints.'').

This amendment was passed in an environment in which the Department of Justice has increased pressure upon journalists and their sources. Many of the nation's most respected reporters have characterized this as an assault on press freedom that chills investigative reporting and the public's right to know.

Recent revelations that the Department of Justice secretly subpoenaed twenty phones lines at the Associated Press, and a legal brief filed by the Justice Department calling a Fox News journalist a ``co- conspirator'' for simply protecting a source, have provoked widespread, bipartisan criticism. Many are concerned that the Department of Justice is actively impeding newsgathering activities protected by the First Amendment. The House of Representatives intends, by passing this amendment, to reject this harassment of journalists by the Department of Justice.

Moreover, recently-disclosed digital surveillance activities by the United States government have had an inherent chilling effect on the act of journalism and the exercise of the First Amendment. This amendment is intended to ensure that the rights and newsgathering activities of reporters and journalists are not chilled when uncovering information involving or implicating the United States government or associated institutions. Furthermore, both Congress and the President have recognized the problem of `over-classification' of documents by agencies across the Federal Government. If journalists are prevented from publishing classified information, and the government classifies enormous quantities of information that should rightfully be in the public domain, the public is prohibited from knowing the workings of its government. Using Federal Government resources to undermine legitimate news-related activities or chill journalism, particularly when those activities aim to disclose the workings of government because that information is classified, constitutes a threat to the self-government of the American public. Federal government attempts to undermine legitimate news-related activities and/or chill journalism, are prohibited by this amendment.

Finally, the act of journalism has been transformed by the internet. New methods for uncovering and publishing newsworthy information, and for financing such newsgathering and dissemination, are now available. This amendment protects the ability for those who may not have traditionally been considered journalists to engage in journalism. It is further intended to allow for experimentation in publication and dissemination of news without the threat of the Department of Justice using its resources to compel the revelation of journalistic sources through legal coercion.

This amendment is to be construed liberally and broadly, to effectuate its purpose of protecting journalists and their sources from any coercive action taken by the government and the legal system. Its spirit applies to other government agencies, and to litigation between private parties. The terms ``information or sources'' and ``confidential'' are to be given the widest possible construction. The limitation applies not only to the quashing of subpoenas, but also to every form of discovery, civil and criminal contempt, arrest and imprisonment, and any form of coercion within the legal system.

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

I rise today in support of House Resolution 600, to extend my gratitude to Chairman Royce, and to urge my colleagues' support as well.

This Saturday, the people of Afghanistan will travel to the polls to elect a new President in a runoff election. The victorious candidate will replace Hamid Karzai, who has led Afghanistan since 2001.

House Resolution 600 recognizes this important moment in history and urges the Government of Afghanistan to pursue a transparent, credible, and inclusive runoff Presidential election while ensuring the safety of voters, candidates, poll workers, and election observers.

So far, the U.S. Government has contributed more than $100 million toward the 2014 Afghanistan election, and numerous United States and coalition soldiers have sacrificed their lives in efforts to secure Afghanistan and prepare it for this crucial moment of peaceful transition of power.

I think that it is important to recognize these facts, and that is part of what House Resolution 600 seeks to do.

On April 5, the Government of Afghanistan held the first round of a Presidential election, in which almost 60 percent of eligible voters participated. Now, according to the Afghan Constitution, because no single candidate claimed more than 50 percent of the vote, a runoff election between the top two candidates will be held.

The first round of elections were promising in terms of increased voter turnout, no civilian deaths in attacks on election day, and a quick certification of results in order to set the stage for a runoff election, but more work remains to be done.

Votes from 331 polling stations were invalidated and removed from the final tabulations. Reports of voter and election monitor intimidation persist. Reports of attempts to bribe election monitors have occurred. Reports of SMS and texting capabilities being suspended on election day exist. Concerns remain about the lack of transparency and activities of the Afghan Independent Election Commission and the Electoral Complaints Commission. Seventeen members of the Afghan National Security Forces were killed in attacks on election day. And female voter participation and protection remains at a level below what Afghan males enjoy.

In light of these issues, House Resolution 600 commends the Government of Afghanistan for holding the first round of elections and scheduling a second; expresses support for a credible, inclusive, and transparent runoff election; supports the mandate of Afghan electoral bodies to prevent voter fraud

and misconduct; encourages the Government of Afghanistan to implement measures that will increase voter participation, particularly among Afghan females; and urges the security force to continue to provide protection to vulnerable areas of the country during the election period, as well as recognizing the sacrifices of those forces that have contributed and will continue to contribute to the security and stability of Afghanistan.

This is an exciting time for Afghanistan, Mr. Speaker, and this election is an important one. American forces have been in Afghanistan now for a decade, and most of them are now coming home. This election will be crucial in proving to the world that Afghanistan is ready again to chart its own course and to provide its own security.

I wish the Afghan people well in this endeavor, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to raise by 50 percent the cap on funding for the Limited English Proficiency initiative under the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity section of this bill, an amount more in keeping with the historical levels on spending for this initiative.

This amendment passed by voice vote last year, and it is my hope that it will do so again this year. The Limited English Proficiency initiative within HUD is vital for ensuring that individuals who are not proficient in English are aware of their rights, are able to understand the terms of leases and other housing-related documents, and are able to receive important announcements that affect the health and safety of their households.

Additionally, this initiative educates HUD-assisted housing providers about their responsibilities under Federal law and HUD regulations to ensure that housing programs and activities are

fully accessible to all, regardless of national origin or English proficiency.

Historically, the Limited English Proficiency initiative within HUD has been funded at $500,000. In the first year of its existence, 2008, it received $380,000. After that, from 2009 through 2011, it received $500,000. Then, with the change in leadership in this House, funding has slipped to $300,000 in recent years.

Last year, however, this House--both Democrats and Republicans--did the right thing. It voted to raise the cap for this initiative, an initiative that translates documents outlining how to become a first- time homeowner and how to avoid loan fraud and foreclosure, as well as fair housing information for disaster housing providers and survivors. I ask that we do so again here today.

I want to point out that we are not taking away from any other programs. We are simply slightly lifting the cap on this particular initiative.

We do have to realize that there are over 40 million Americans who do not speak English as their first language. This tiny program demonstrates to the American people that we have equal protection under the law, regardless of whether people are English-speaking, Spanish- speaking, or speak some other language.

Given the tiny amount of money that is involved here, this program has been extraordinarily effective. In the last year for which we have statistics, almost 30,000 people benefited for a program that cost the Federal Government only $300,000.

I ask the majority and my friends across the aisle to consider the value of this program to every community across America, and I urge them to accept this amendment, as they did last year.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment is identical to other amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every appropriations bill that has been considered under an open rule in this Congress.

My amendment would expand the list of parties with whom the Federal Government is prohibited from contracting because of serious misconduct on the part of those contractors. It is my hope that this amendment will remain noncontroversial as it has always been, and again passed unanimously by the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple good government provision. It says that when a contractor goes over budget or is behind schedule the contractor should not be rewarded for that. None of the funds made available in this act may be used to pay for bonus awards to contractors who work on projects that are behind schedule or over budget.

The provision that we are talking about here appears in the Senate Transportation, Housing Appropriations bill that was reported out of the committee in the Senate last week. It should appear in our bill and it should be signed into law.

Nothing in this amendment places a blanket ban on bonuses to contractors. What this amendment does, however, is to demonstrate that Congress expects Federal projects to be delivered on time and on budget.

We have heard so many words over the years in this Chamber about waste, fraud, and abuse. This simple amendment accurately cracks down on those examples of waste, fraud, and abuse that arise and prevents taxpayer money from being squandered. If projects are not delivered on time and on budget, this amendment simply ensures that bad contractors are not rewarded extra for that poor performance.

With regard to the terms that are used, the term ``bonus award'' refers to the Federal acquisition regulation, title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, subpart 16.4, having to do with incentive contracts. That term is defined in that provision.

With regard to the term ``work on projects,'' that simply refers to the contractor's contract.

With regard to the term ``behind schedule,'' that refers to the time of delivery. That is a provision that is in every contract in FAR 52.211-8 or FAR 52.211-9. The regulations specifically provide for time of delivery with a delivery schedule, and that is the term that is used in the regulation, and also in the contract itself. Those provisions

are proscribed in the Federal Acquisition Regulations in 48 C.F.R., subpart 11.4, specifically FAR 11.404.

The term ``over budget'' is very simply a reference to the contract award itself. The Federal Acquisition Regulations proscribes a specific form for that purpose in 48 C.F.R. 53, and that is Standard Form 33. In Box 22 of Standard Form 33 is the contract award amount. If the contractor goes over budget, the contract has exceeded the amount that appears in FAR 52.3 of 33 in the award amount box, in Box 20. The provision refers to cost reimbursement awards and it refers to time and material awards. If the goes over budget on a firm fixed price award, the contractor bears that expense. If the contractor goes over budget on a time and materials award or a cost reimbursement award and then seeks a bonus on top of that from the government, then that is what we are prohibiting here.

These are terms that are well recognized in the world of Federal contracting. This provision accurately targets overpayment to contractors, extra payment to contractors, bonus payment to contractors, when they have gone behind schedule or they are over budget.

I submit that the Senate was wise to include this in its bill. We should do the same.

I ask my colleagues respectfully for their support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply not the case that this is legislating. It is simply not the case this imposes any additional duties.

As I indicated a few moments ago, the terms that are in this provision are terms that are ascertainable from every single government contract that is awarded. Every single government contract that is awarded by the Federal Government is done so through Standard Form 33. That lists the amount of the contract award.

Every single government contract that is awarded that has a delivery schedule--and not every one does--but every one that has a delivery schedule has a delivery schedule in the form of a provision in FAR 52.211-8 or 52.211-9.

All the government would have to do is simply observe the terms of its own contract and be able to ascertain these facts. When the government is looking at the terms of its own contract, that is something the government does every day; therefore, there is no additional legislating that is involved here.

I respectfully submit that this is not legislating. This is not asking the government to do anything in addition to what the government already is required to do. It is simply prohibiting a waste of expenditure, a waste of funds, and that is exactly a primary purpose of these appropriation bills.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard to respond to the last comment.

Mr. Chairman, responding to the last point, respectfully, again, these are contract terms that are defined in the contract itself.

The gentleman has a point that the term ``project'' is one that could be taken to refer to something other than a contract if we were not talking about Federal contracting. Here we are talking about Federal contracts only, so the term ``project'' refers to what the contractor is working on.

There is no ambiguity here. Either the contract is on schedule or it is off schedule. Either the contract is over budget or it is on budget or it is under budget. There is simply no ambiguity involved here.

If we were legislating, then I would see the gentleman's point, but in this particular case we are not. Therefore, I respectfully request that the point of order be overruled and we be allowed to proceed to a vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds appropriated by this bill from being used for the purpose of establishing a toll on any existing free lane of Interstate 4 in the State of Florida.

I-4, as we call it back home, is the most traveled road in the central Florida region. Thousands of my constituents, each day, commute to and from work using the road. To use their hard-earned tax dollars to implement a new fee on our commutes just seems wrong to me, and that is why I am offering this amendment.

I don't think Floridians should be treated any differently in this bill than, frankly, Texans are on pages 31 and 32 of this bill.

My constituents would like to keep their freeway free, and I don't blame them, particularly when ground has been broken on new toll lanes that will run right down the middle of I-4.

Local authorities are free to build new lanes and expressways, as is the Federal Government, and provide for construction as they see fit, but I am here to make sure that the existing free lanes on I-4 remain untolled.

I urge support for this amendment. After all, a toll is very much like a tax, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should recognize.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment was originally drafted to apply to both new and existing lanes. This amendment was redrawn and redrafted to specifically limit it to existing free lanes.

All of the contract work that is being done in central Florida, and in fact around the country at this point, would not be affected by this amendment because it applies to only existing free lanes.

My question to the gentleman from Iowa is, Did the gentleman realize that the amendment had been modified before the gentleman opposed the amendment?

I thank the gentleman for the clarification.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Essential Air Service program, or EAS, is an expensive government handout. It is, in effect, welfare for airplanes.

Page 9 of this bill states that, under the EAS, the per-passenger subsidy for flights that would otherwise not exist to rural communities, excluding Hawaii and Alaska, is capped at $500 per passenger. That is simply too high.

I don't see any reason why we should be paying people $500 to fly from communities like Muscles Shoals, not when this Congress is cutting food aid programs and development block grants to communities.

I think this is a very poor use of taxpayer funds. It is an example of the waste, fraud, and abuse that we constantly decry.

My amendment would reduce the $500 per passenger subsidy allowed under the EAS to a still very high $250 because $500 per passenger is simply outrageous.

If passengers don't want to fly those aviation routes, then those subsidies

shouldn't exist, and in fact, the routes should exist.

For $500 per passenger, we could rent a limousine for every single person that boards these EAS flights and drive them to the nearest commercial airport.

I understand the need for rural services for necessary aspects of life like Postal Service, telephones, and even the Internet, but I cannot understand the need to subsidize regular airline flights that would otherwise not exist to the tune of $500 per passenger.

Many of these flights fly empty. Many have only one or two or three passengers on them on a large airplane. They exist only because the government is paying the bill. We are taxing people to subsidize other people's airfare.

The bill before us today would cut funding for transit starts by 13 percent, TIGER grants by 80 percent, public housing modernization by 5 percent, and the home program for 30 percent, among other things. Under these circumstances, I cannot stand here in good conscience and allow a subsidy like this to continue.

I offer this amendment today because it is more important to put a roof over the heads of the poor in this housing bill and to make sure that people have a means to gets to work and to get to their families and their loved ones in this transportation bill, than it is to hand out corporate welfare to United Airlines.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chair, this very same bill limits this subsidy to $500 per passenger. Earlier on in this bill, that is a determination that this bill requires to be made. I am simply changing that figure from $500 to $250. It is, shall I say, unwarranted.

To say that that is expecting any new law, enacting anything new, it is simply modifying another provision in this specific act.

Offered By: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 9: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 7: Page 112, line 17, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $150,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 8: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 25: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 26: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase from $3 million to $6 million the amount of funds appropriated for competitive grants to distribute firearm safety materials and gun locks under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. The Edward Byrne program is funded at $376 million total, as recently amended up to $380 in this appropriations bill. The $3 million increase that I am seeking is less than 1

percent of the total allocation of the program and has received a budget-neutral score from the Congressional Budget Office.

I think that increasing the level of gun safety in America is a priority, and I hope that my colleagues would agree. Nothing in this amendment would restrict any American citizen's Second Amendment rights. The only thing that this amendment seeks to do is to achieve greater gun literacy, safety, and avoid accidents.

This amendment makes good sense, it will save lives, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I would like to state at the outset of offering this particular perfecting amendment that I really wish that this section 202 of this bill located on page 54 didn't appear in it. It reads as follows:

None of the funds appropriated by this title shall be

available to pay for an abortion, except where the life of

the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to

term, or in the case of rape.

Again, I disagree with this section of the bill and its limiting principle, but I feel that we should, at the very least, perfect it in the manner that also includes the words ``or incest.''

In short, there is an allowance here for abortions in the case of endangering the mother, and there is an allowance in the case of rape, but somehow or other this bill forbids abortions in the case of incest.

Throughout the U.S. Code, whether it be in 10 U.S.C. 1093 pertaining to abortions for armed services personnel, 42 U.S.C. 1397ee or jj, dealing with exceptions to abortion limitations within the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, or 42 U.S.C. 18023, a section containing provisions of the Affordable Care Act, Federal law is clear: abortion exceptions consistently include protections to the life of the mother in cases of rape and cases of incest.

Were one to examine comprehensively the statutes and regulations of this Nation, there are numerous similar occasions referred to colloquially as the Hyde Amendment. I think that this amendment itself is explanatory. I believe it is perfecting in nature. I think it is quite possible that the drafters inadvertently omitted ``incest'' from this bill, and I think that it carries the protection necessary for all American women, whether incarcerated or not.

I don't think that the purpose of this bill was inadvertently or through silence to narrow the protections that are afforded to women under our Constitution. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I recognize that there may be a point of order to be raised here. I would specifically urge my colleague to think twice before raising that point of order. We are talking here about incest, a vile crime. Even if there is a point of order to be raised here, it is optional. I would hope that my colleagues would recognize that it is optional and that a higher important principle is involved here.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Madam Chair, laws have consequences. The scenario that we are describing here is one where a female prisoner is the victim of incest. If this law passes as currently written that female prisoner will be forced to carry to term the child of an incestuous relationship. I regard this as absolutely indefensible.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I would ask the gentleman to consider the consequences of his action and withdraw the point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, just for the sake of perfect clarity, may I have the first few words of the amendment read.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to other amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every appropriations bill this year and last year that has been considered under an open rule.

This amendment would expand the list of parties the Federal Government is prohibited from contracting with because of misconduct on the part of those contractors. This list would include contractors who have been convicted of fraud; have violated Federal or State antitrust laws; who have been convicted of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, violation of Federal tax laws, and other items outlined in section 52.209-5 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

These are all offenses which any contractor doing business with the Federal Government must disclose to the contracting officer, but oddly enough, the contracting officer, absent this amendment, would then be free to ignore these transgressions and award contracts to the offending entities.

I commend the authors of this bill for their inclusion of sections 536 and 537. I still believe, however, that we can improve on the bill by prohibiting agencies from contracting with those entities who have engaged in the activities described above.

It is my hope that this amendment will remain noncontroversial, as it has been, and, again, will be passed unanimously by the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

For avoidance of data, I would like to have the first few words of the amendment read, please.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It prohibits the Federal Bureau of Prisons from soliciting, offering, or awarding a contract--and by the way, I am talking about a new contract, not an existing contract--to a for-profit prison that guarantees the number of prisoners that will be housed there.

I believe it is not only bad policy but fundamentally immoral to guarantee that our government will incarcerate a specific number of people so that a for-profit entity can guarantee its profit margin. Whether or not we agree on the main impetus for incarceration-- punishment, rehabilitation, or some combination of both--I would hope that we can all agree that a perverse conflict of interest, such as the one that this amendment addresses, should not be allowed to exist to be able to guarantee a profit on human bodies.

This amendment seeks to eliminate any potential for a repeat of the ``kids for cash'' scandal that unfolded in 2008. In that instance, two judges from Pennsylvania accepted money from the builder of two private for-profit juvenile facilities in return for imposing harsh sentences on juveniles brought before their courts. All told, those two individuals received $2.6 million in payments from the managers at that company.

American citizens' freedom and the length of a convicted person's prison sentence should never be a line item on a business sheet. I would hate to imagine a world in which certain segments of our society could honestly question whether or not they are being targeted purely for filling an incarceration quota guaranteed to a for-profit prison.

Let me be clear. I may not like for-profit prisons, but this amendment would not ban them nor would it have any effect on existing contracts that the Federal Government has already entered into. What it does do is it bans a practice of guaranteeing under new contracts a specific number of human beings that will be jailed or imprisoned in a given year. I think that is wrong. I hope that you do too.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

The author of this amendment, namely me, is open to whatever ameliorating second order amendments the gentleman may care to offer. I think we may be on the same wavelength here, and I would not oppose a second order amendment if the gentleman so sought one.

Will the gentleman yield for a question again?

Would the gentleman agree that the gentleman's principles of guaranteeing a contract to the prison companies can be achieved by simply giving them a certain dollar amount in the contract, which I will concede my amendment does not prohibit? All my amendment prohibits is guaranteeing a certain number of bodies. Would the gentleman concede that allowing them to get their guaranteed contract through dollar amounts would achieve the same purpose, and would the gentleman concede that this amendment allows that?

Mr. Chairman, based upon the kind representations of the Chair and based upon the kind representations of the ranking member, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this concerns the Buy American Act and how it interacts with the work of the Trade Representative under this bill.

The Buy American Act dates back to every Republican's favorite President, President Hoover, who signed it into office on his last day in office in 1933. It requires the U.S. Government to prefer U.S.-made products in its purchases, and there already is precedent for this in the trade organization agreement called the WTO 1996 Agreement on Government Procurement. The Buy American Act was specifically excluded from the government procurement agreements program.

We are coming up upon a time when, according to news reports, the President may be presenting us with trade agreements. He may be presenting us with a fast track procedure for those trade agreements. The fast track procedure would basically give us a take-it-or-leave-it situation on these principles. Obviously, these trade agreements that have been negotiated are complex, but I think that we shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

This is an 80-year-old law. It requires that the American Government give preference to American-made products when making procurement decisions. This is a commonsense principle that guides purchasing throughout the Federal Government, as it should.

Hard-earned American taxpayer dollars should be reused here at home. They should be going back into our economy and putting Americans back to work. I would hate to see this fundamental principle of government procurement slurred or undermined in any way by any agreement that is now being negotiated by the Trade Representative or anybody else in this administration or any future administration.

Therefore, I submit this amendment to make certain that the agreements now being negotiated, the ones being negotiated in the future, respect this basic, fundamental principle that American dollars and American jobs are what the American Government is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I regret bringing this up at 10:30 at night. I apologize for that because this is a weighty matter, and I think it deserves fair consideration. I hope we are not all too tired to deny this question the attention that it deserves.

The purpose of this amendment is to raise the possibility of a Federal shield law that corresponds to shield law already in place in 49 States, but not at the level of the Federal Government.

A shield law is legislation designed to protect a reporter's privilege or the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to information and sources of information obtained during a news gather and dissemination process. In short, a reporter should not be forced to reveal his or her source, and that is in fact the law in 49 States, the only exception being Wyoming.

This has come up in court cases at the Federal level and at the Supreme Court level, beginning with the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes, which I think poses this question in the microcosm.

In that case, a reporter wanted to inform his readers about the nature of the drug hashish, and he realized the only way to go about that was to find and interview people who had actually used the drug hashish, and so he did that.

After he published his article, relying upon these two confidential sources, at that point, he was subpoenaed to provide those sources, compromising their identity and compromising the principle of protecting your sources.

This is an issue that comes up from time to time, often at the State level, occasionally at the Federal level.

Some of us may remember the case of the Plame affair, the CIA leak scandal. A reporter was asked to release the name of the person to whom he had been perceived to leak regarding Valerie Plame. Reporters were asked, in general: Who are your sources with regards to this leak?

One reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, was jailed for 85 days in 2005 for refusing to disclose her source in the government probe.

At this point, under current law, journalists are in a quandary. They realize the need to protect their sources. That right is recognized in 49 States, but it is not codified at the Federal level, so what I seek to do at this late hour today is to do just that.

I think this is a very important principle, as Branzburg pointed out, that springs from the foundation of our law. The Constitution and the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech and of the press. It is completely incongruous to say we have freedom of the press, but the Federal Government can subpoena your sources and put them and you in prison--you, if you don't comply.

This is something that should have been handled perhaps years, if not decades ago. It falls upon us tonight, at this late hour, to try to handle it ourselves. I respectfully submit this amendment as being a much-needed and long-delayed clarification that the Federal Government treats this matter no differently than 49 States now do, and therefore, I ask for support on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Supreme Court decision that we are talking about here was decided in 1972. There have already been hearings. There has been plenty of draft legislation. It is hard enough to get anything voted on around here. It is time to vote on this.

After 42 years since the Supreme Court first addressed this, we don't have this body on record saying whether or not there should be a Federal shield law. I understand the reservations that have been expressed, but the time is now.

The reporters in this country have waited long enough. It is time to be fair and show fealty to the First Amendment and to pass this amendment tonight.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 34: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 35: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section: