Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin my remarks by correcting my friend from Texas with reference to his 1-minute statement previous to the time that we began the rule.

As I understood him, he said that for the last 20 months, Democrats have controlled every level of power. Somewhere along the line, I think my friend must be very confused about what the responsibilities of the United States House of Representatives is and are.

That said, my recollection is that in this Congress, which has consumed 6 months, and in the previous one, which took 2 years, that my friends in the Republican Party have controlled the House of Representatives. Unless there is no longer one level of power in Washington, something is misunderstood by me.

Mr. Speaker, the House faces a number of pressing issues that have bipartisan support and that we could be addressing in our limited time before the August recess. For example, we could be reforming in a comprehensive manner our Nation's immigration system. We could be ending the sequester. I have not met a Democrat or a Republican that did not say that the sequester was a bad idea. We could be addressing the doubling of student loan interest rates. We could be having a conference on a farm bill, or we could be appointing--something that I still find very strange--we could be appointing budget conferees.

It used to be that having a conference around this place was a real opportunity for Members, and Members sought to be on the conference. I know my first experience I was fascinated by the fact that I'm on a conference with the other body, the United States Senate. Little did I know that their rules provided for them to vote by proxy, but I came to learn that perhaps it wasn't as important as I thought it was, but it is important to the process.

But for any of these important issues to be addressed, Members would have to work together to resolve their differences. Instead, we're spending our time on two bills that my friends across the aisle know will never become law. I don't have to be a betting person to bet anybody in this institution that what we are discussing here today will not become the law of the land. The reason that I know that is we've already done it four times, this same measure, and it didn't see the light of day in the other body. This one ain't going to either.

These bills today show what I've been saying for quite some time now, and it's that my Republican colleagues really are not manifesting interest in actually fixing our country's problems. In fact, it seems that they're more happy to simply bring Congress to a standstill and call that success.

Mr. Speaker, political victories are not victories for struggling families. In case these bills are not clear enough evidence, my friends recently released their messaging plan for the August work period in our respective districts. That plan is called ``Fighting Washington for All Americans.'' Wow. Despite the irony, I would almost want to call it hypocrisy of sitting Members of Congress trying to paint themselves as outsiders and reformers while ignoring their key role in creating the gridlock. Fighting Washington for All Americans urges Members to consider Washington as a place where nothing good happens, so the less governing that gets done, the better. Yet these two bills today completely contradict those ideas.

H.R. 1582 gives the Department of Energy unprecedented authority to veto Environmental Protection Agency-related regulations. Not only does the bill prevent the EPA from finalizing critical public health and environmental rules, it instructs the Department of Energy to conduct a duplicative and convoluted analysis without any new resources. These are the people that say bureaucracy is a problem, and yet they're creating additional bureaucracy within the framework of these two measures.

I said yesterday in the Rules Committee I would be astounded at how much time it's going to take the Energy Department and the EPA to coordinate their efforts. Evidently, these people haven't been trying to talk to these bureaucrats the way that I have over the course of time, and it requires, this measure does, extra examination, despite the Office of Management and Budget's interagency review of all regulations, which includes the Department of Energy, in the review of EPA rules.

I did a little research, Mr. Speaker, on how many times over the course of the time that I've been here that Members on the other side have offered measures, that did not become law, to abolish the Department of Energy. Hear me loud and clear: to abolish the Department of Energy.

Now we come today, after that having been done numerous times, we come today and the Energy Department is the answer. These same people wanted to, I guess everything with an ``E'' that's in the Cabinet, they wanted the Department of EPA to be abolished at one time, the Department of Education. They need to change their acronyms over there or else they'll find themselves abolished, if they don't get past A, B,

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

And would the Speaker be kind enough to tell both sides how much time we have remaining?

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

Several of our colleagues, including the previous speaker, are suggesting that this bill is better than previous versions. But this is actually the worst version yet from a public health and environmental perspective.

All you have to do is look at the Statement of Administration Policy to see how this bill has gotten worse. The administration is concerned that there's no clear and appropriate authority for taking corrective action on unlimited or leaking impoundments or units.

Unlike H.R. 2273, from the last Congress, this says that an unlined impoundment that is found to be contaminating groundwater only has to close after alternative disposal capacity is available at the same site. Well, many of these facilities don't have the space for additional capacity at the same site. That means that the pollution can go on for years, or even indefinitely.

This bill is the worst version of coal ash legislation yet. That's why all the environmental groups oppose this legislation. They even sent a letter to the House today that states, ``This bill is more dangerous to human health and environment than previous versions of this legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, I'm very sad today. One of my college classmates is being funeralized, or has been funeralized as we are speaking. Her funeral was at 11 o'clock. She lives in a community called Golden Heights. In Golden Heights, in a 2-square mile radius from a dump that dumped into that community for a considerable period of time, the incidence of cancer of dear friends of mine, male and female, is inordinately high by comparison to any other place in the State of Florida.

Something is wrong with the picture of continuing to pollute and to not be mindful of who are the victims of that pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I make the distinction that I was not talking about coal ash, and I'm glad I don't live near one of those places where they are dumping like in Uniontown, Alabama.

If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2070, Representative Tim Bishop's bill to protect consumers from price gouging at the gas pump.

To discuss his bill, I would like now to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my friend.

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

The previous speaker is a person that, there are few in Congress that I have greater respect for. I certainly understand the dynamics of living in communities. In my judgment, she's absolutely correct that what we should be doing is everything we can to constructively make sure that we are about the business of ensuring the health of the communities that we live in.

So, to that degree, while I stand by my position that I'm glad I don't live next to these facilities, unfortunately, I live close to, and have for some time, facilities that have been harmful that claimed that they were protecting the health and the environment of people.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) said something that I would like to correct. He'll be down here, I'm sure, later today or whenever this measure comes up. He noted that the Environmental Protection Agency testified ``that they do not oppose'' this coal ash bill.

I want to make sure that everyone knows that the Environmental Protection Agency said that because they are not permitted to take a position on legislation, only the administration is allowed to say they support or oppose legislation. And in the administration position last night, they did not say that they don't support the coal ash bill, nor was it a veto threat.

I would urge my colleague from Texas to point me to the time that Barack Obama has vetoed something.

One of the things, I've been on that committee--he's been there 7 months. I've been there years, and I've been there with other Presidents, and it is not uncommon for Congress to propose and to have the administration oppose and vice versa.

Mr. Speaker, both of these bills before us today are so tilted toward commercial operations that they reflect a warped sense of what is important to the people in this great country of ours. These bills undermine environmental laws that have been proven to protect communities and provide for the development of energy to run America.

While we need to develop laws that promote energy and commerce, snide commentary regarding failed policies at the Department of Energy ignores the number of successes through the years under different administrations and this one that the Department of Energy has put forward.

We cannot, in many respects, develop laws that promote energy and commerce and ignore the consequences of those activities. Pollution is not equivalent to progress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bills, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the rule in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to stop being ``Repealicans'' and be about the business of trying to do something constructive in this House of Representatives.

I would ask them to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mr. John B. Boy, the former President and C.E.O. of the U.S. Sugar Corporation, who died on July 16, 2013 at the age of 96. He spent 41 years at U.S. Sugar, serving as its President for 17 years until his retirement.

John held a degree in mechanical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Under his leadership, the Bryant Sugar House was built in Canal Point, Florida. Additionally, John acquired the South Bay Growers vegetable and sugar cane operations, where he began growing oranges and producing orange juice. Among his lasting contributions, while serving as an engineer in his company's agricultural equipment shop, are the many important mechanical advancements in Glades agriculture that are still used today.

During World War II, John served in the U.S. Navy, becoming captain of three ships. After the war, he moved from Ohio to Clewiston, Florida, where he began his employment in the sugar industry. John contributed immeasurably to his community, and encouraged employees at U.S. Sugar, as well as those around him, to do the same.

As a measure of their appreciation for all that he did for the sugar industry, Clewiston's civic auditorium, located within sight of the U.S. Sugar plant, is named after him.

John is survived by his daughter, Betsy Terrill (Jim); sons, John Boy, Jr. (Connie) and H. Lane Boy; grandchildren, Jamie Terrill, Christopher Smith, Jennifer Price, Suzanne Boy, Stephanie Crawford, and Rachael Boy; and 10 great grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, words cannot express how deeply sorry I am for John's passing. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends, and all of those in the sugar community. I was privileged to know him and call him my friend. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mr. Frank Pumilia for his lifetime of community involvement and dedication to South Florida.

Frank grew up in Brooklyn, New York, where he was an active member of many community organizations. In 1989, he relocated to Broward County, Florida, and for more than 20 years has been politically and civically involved in his local community. He has served as Chairman and Chief Examiner of the Margate Civil Service Board, as a member of the Foundation of Broward, and also as a member of the Florida Business and Professional Board.

Currently, Frank serves as the President of the Margate Democratic Club and as a board member of the Broward County Democratic Executive Committee. During his time as President, he has counseled and encouraged many of South Florida's political candidates and leaders. At the age of 92, Frank continues his role as Senior Political Advisor within the Broward County Democratic Party.

Frank has also been an important leader in addressing condominium issues in his local community. He has served as President of the Margate Association of Condominiums for many years. In this capacity, he works to help those facing foreclosure and to advance the rights of condominium owners.

It is my true honor and privilege to recognize Mr. Frank Pumilia for his continued community leadership and activism. I offer him my best wishes for continued good health and success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife Veterinarians Employment and Training Act of 2013. This legislation will serve as a source of job growth, promote robust public health policy, and develop affordable opportunities for individuals who are interested in becoming wildlife and zoological veterinarians.

Wildlife and zoo veterinarians are the primary source of essential health care and management for wild animals in their natural habitat and in captivity. Not only do these physicians preserve natural resources and the lives of animals, but they subsequently help protect human health by preventing, detecting and responding to exotic and dangerous diseases.

With the intensification of global interaction between humans, livestock and wildlife, the threat posed by emerging infectious diseases to humans and wildlife continues to increase. Controlling these pandemic and large-scale outbreaks of disease has become more problematic and much more pertinent of an issue. However, the United States faces a shortage of positions for wildlife and zoo veterinarians to ensure our safety from this threat.

Following graduation, professionals practicing wildlife and zoological veterinary medicine go on to earn relatively low salaries, compared to their companions in animal medicine. Studies also show that on average, veterinarian graduates owe roughly $130,000 in student loans. The reality of a low salary, combined with high educational debt, amidst scarce employment opportunities, discourages students from pursuing these important careers. Furthermore, due to the severe lack of practical training and formal educational programs specializing in wildlife and zoological veterinary medicine, graduates are unable to make significant contributions to the field.

My bill will directly address these issues which prevent and dissuade veterinarians from practicing wildlife and zoological medicine. It will contribute to the national job creation effort by funding new positions for wildlife and zoo veterinarians to enter upon graduation. The bill will also limit the amount of educational debt for students while providing incentives to practice wildlife and zoo veterinary medicine through the establishment of scholarships and loan repayment programs. Lastly, my legislation will advance education by helping schools develop pilot curricula around wildlife and zoo veterinary medicine and by expanding the number of practical training programs available to students.

Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point in our history when we can no longer ignore the importance of protecting wildlife, domestically and internationally. Wild animals play a very critical role in our natural resources and contribute to maintaining a balanced ecosystem. With an increasing number of endangered species, invasive non-native species, and infectious disease threats, wildlife and zoological veterinarians must be prioritized and given the resources and recognition necessary to protect both animal and human lives.

I urge my colleagues to extend a helping hand to America's veterinarians by supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in very strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from America's poor families.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, your position as you enunciate is when a person says why they are opposed, that that is beyond the boundaries of the clarity that you say one must offer when he or she is in opposition to the rule?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my anxiousness is probably perpetuated by the 6 hours that I've sat here waiting to offer this amendment.

That said, over the Fourth of July holiday, when persons working with me sent me the summary of the Rules Committee and I read that we were taking $233 million out of science, I most immediately contacted people working with me and asked if they would prepare an amendment that may very well cause some of the membership to feel a remedy.

Let me say most immediately, Mr. Chairman, that Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Kaptur, I have newfound appreciation not just for them, but for all appropriators in working within the framework that they have been given. And certainly my amendment does not address either of them or their respective staffs who are deserving of extraordinary commendations on both sides for having done the best you can with what you have. I appreciate that.

Today, I offer a modest amendment that makes a profound statement about our country's priorities.

Federally supported basic research at the Department of Energy has helped to lead the development of lithium ion batteries, digital recording technology, communications satellites, and water-purification techniques, among other vital and incredible advances. I might add, some of this work would not be done by the private sector. It may come as a surprise to some to know that some of the research that led to Google came out of the National Science Foundation.

Many of my Republican colleagues' insistence on cutting everything except defense spending ignores the realities of our modern world. China, South Korea, and Australia are but three examples that are increasing their percentage of their GDP that's spent on research.

If we continue to cut, cut, cut, pretty soon we're going to cut ourselves right out of the equation in innovation and technology. Yet this bill provides $223 million, 5 percent less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted levels, and $500 million, 10 percent less than the administration's request for basic scientific research.

The amendment that I'm offering restores basic science research to the enacted levels, and it offsets this change with funds from the $7.7 billion appropriated for nuclear weapons, which is an increase of $98 million, 1 percent over the enacted level. The Congressional Budget Office says that this amendment has zero impact on budget authority and actually reduces 2014 outlays by $22 million.

Bombs will not end our dependence on foreign fossil fuel. Bombs don't stop trains and underground pipelines from exploding around this country. Bombs don't prevent oil from washing up on our beaches. And bombs certainly won't put food on the tables of working poor Americans.

Mr. Chairman, our country has real needs. Adequately funding basic research is one of them. Basic research will help to ensure that our country continues to be a world leader in research and development, keeping jobs where they belong, here in America.

We can no longer afford to spend money on weapons programs that were conceived in the Cold War era. We don't need more bombs. We need to fund programs that will help move this Nation forward and spur economic growth. Congress can and should do better.

I want to cite one specific in particular. The B61 life extension program is a perfect example of misplaced Republican priorities. The B61 is the oldest bomb in our nuclear arsenal--almost as old as I am. The committee recommended $561 million, $23.7 million above the budget request for the B61 program.

The Senate version assumes a cheaper adjustment, the ``triple alt,'' than this bill. That still extends the program for 10 years. That assumption alone would save $191 million and almost restore research funding to the enacted levels by itself.

Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to yield my time because I waited so long, but I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Today, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran, for working with me to bring this amendment to the floor.

This amendment strikes section 204 of the underlying bill. Section 204 seeks to limit the ability to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement, EIS. Given our experience with devastating oil spills such as the BP spill, the Exxon Valdez, and a spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, we should be improving our review processes and strengthening safety requirements.

The combination of reduced resources and shortened timeframes that are mandated by the bill, as well as the expanse of area to be addressed, make the task of preparing a credible EIS difficult, if not impossible.

With these demanding schedules provided by section 204, what information is compelling Congress to seek such swift approval? Oil production, as has been said, is at a 20-year high and natural gas production is also at an all-time high. Furthermore, under President Obama's leadership, our dependence on foreign oil has fallen from 57 percent to 36 percent.

Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to pass legislation that will serve them. Section 204 limits the environmental review to provide for less rigor than a typical review process, which can create huge environmental and economic risks.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, would you be kind enough to tell me how much time I have remaining?

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the cosponsor of this amendment and good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Chairman, the impacts of a major oil spill off Florida's coast would be devastating to tourism, travel to nearby beaches, mangroves, and wildlife. This is a truncated process and wrong.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on June 20, 2013, I would have voted accordingly:

1. Roll No. 264 On Agreeing to the Amendment Brooks of Alabama Part B Amendment No. 18--``no'' Vote

2. Roll No. 265 On Agreeing to the Amendment Butterfield of North Carolina Part B Amendment No. 25--``yes'' Vote

3. Roll No. 266 On Agreeing to the Amendment Marino of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 26--``no'' Vote

4. Roll No. 267 On Agreeing to the Amendment Schweikert of Arizona Part B Amendment No. 30--``no'' Vote

5. Roll No. 268 On Agreeing to the Amendment Tierney of Massachusetts Part B Amendment No. 32--``yes'' Vote

6. Roll No. 269 On Agreeing to the Amendment Polis of Colorado Part B Amendment No. 37--``yes'' Vote

7. Roll No. 270 On Agreeing to the Amendment Garamendi of California Part B Amendment No. 38--``yes'' Vote

8. Roll No. 271 On Agreeing to the Amendment Marino of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 41--``no'' Vote

9. Roll No. 272 On Agreeing to the Amendment McClintock of California Part B Amendment No. 43--``no'' Vote

10. Roll No. 273 On Agreeing to the Amendment Gibson/Meeks/Sean Maloney of New York Part B Amendment No. 44--``yes'' Vote

11. Roll No. 274 On Agreeing to the Amendment Walorski of Indiana Part B Amendment No. 45--``no'' Vote

12. Roll No. 275 On Agreeing to the Amendment Courtney of Connecticut Part B Amendment No. 46--``yes'' Vote

13. Roll No. 276 On Agreeing to the Amendment Kind of Wisconsin Part B Amendment No. 47--``no'' Vote

14. Roll No. 277 On Agreeing to the Amendment Carney/Radel of Delaware Part B Amendment No. 48--``no'' Vote

15. Roll No. 278 On Agreeing to the Amendment Goodlatte/Scott (GA)/ Moran/Polis/Meeks/DeGette/Lee of Virginia Part B Amendment No. 99-- ``yes'' Vote

16. Roll No. 279 On Agreeing to the Amendment Radel of Florida Part B Amendment No. 49--``no'' Vote

17. Roll No. 280 On Agreeing to the Amendment Walberg of Michigan Part B Amendment No. 50--``yes'' Vote

18. Roll No. 281 On Agreeing to the Amendment Pitts/Davis (IL) of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 98--``no'' Vote

19. Roll No. 282 On Agreeing to the Amendment Fortenberry of Nebraska Part B Amendment No. 100--``no'' Vote

20. Roll No. 283 On Agreeing to the Amendment Huelskamp of Kansas Part B Amendment No. 101--``no'' Vote

21. Roll No. 284 On Agreeing to the Amendment Southerland of Florida Part B Amendment No. 102--``no'' Vote

I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend (Mr. Bishop), for yielding the customary 30 minutes to me.

This rule provides for the consideration of three bills, as enunciated by my friend from Utah. However, the only thing that these bills have in common is that they're overwhelmingly partisan in nature and fail to address the most pressing challenges facing our country. Bottom line: we should be doing all that we can to help struggling Americans get back on their feet.

The first bill, H.R. 1613, had been relatively noncontroversial and could have been addressed under suspension. But instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to take the partisan route by including a provision that waives the Securities and Exchange Commission natural resources extraction disclosure rule of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which requires the disclosure of payments from oil and gas companies to foreign governments. I just simply don't understand why this poison pill was added.

Similarly, H.R. 2231 opens up new, unsafe drilling off the coasts of 14 States at a time when domestic energy production is booming. Furthermore, the bill does virtually nothing--and I asked that question of our colleague, Mr. Duncan from South Carolina--to implement key safety reforms in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and constrains the statutory review process for offshore drilling.

This is a part of the Republicans' ``drill, baby, drill'' energy policy agenda. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to bring bills like this to the floor which contain huge giveaways to Big Oil, it is clear that they're not interested in doing a thing to protect worker safety, the environment, or the tourism and fishing industries. It is astounding that Congress would move forward to open new natural gas and oil leases when this institution has not acted on the recommendation to improve the safety of offshore drilling. If we didn't learn anything at all from BP, we're not ever going to learn anything. The successor to the BP spill commission recently gave Congress a D-plus grade on its legislative response to the spill.

Before opening any new leases, we should enact legislation to improve safety and eliminate or adjust the liability caps upward. We have a pitiable liability cap now of $75 million.

It is time to get real about energy policy. We need to invest in the development of renewable resources, which would reduce our impact on climate change and move us towards true energy independence. These two bills today aren't about gas prices or job creation. They're about bolstering the Republicans' political base and lining the pockets of Big Oil and gas CEOs.

Republicans' refusal to address the sequester and insistence upon limited cuts in the Homeland Security, MilCon/VA, and DOD appropriations bills leave all the other nondefense measures like H.R. 2410 before us today with inadequate funding levels. The refusal by my friends on the other side to appoint conferees to reach a bipartisan compromise on the budget and end the sequester has left us with this disastrous agriculture bill that we saw last week. As my Republican colleagues very well know, there are $214 million in cuts to Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, funding, which will prevent 214,000 eligible applicants from receiving the nutrition they need.

Furthermore, there are $284 million in cuts to Food for Peace that will result in 7.4 million fewer people receiving food aid from the United States. Mr. Speaker, I'd really laugh, except the prioritization of partisanship and politics over responsibility has become par for the course in the Republican-controlled Congress.

As I pointed out before, just last week the Republican partisan farm bill was scuttled. Traditionally--I'm here now 21 years, and that bill, at times that it was brought appropriately, was a bipartisan piece of legislation. Draconian cuts and work requirements imposed upon programs that benefit the poorest among us effectively killed any chance of the FARRM Bill passing. Rather than see passage of a strong, bipartisan bill, Republicans deliberately made it unpalatable to even strong agriculture supporters like myself. These are not the priorities of a Nation that cares about its poor. These are the priorities of a Republican Party that cares only about itself.

The poor are not villains. Many are trapped in inescapable situations due to circumstances totally beyond their control and largely, in many instances, by our making here in this institution. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when those bootstraps, without any nourishment, may be the only thing you have to eat.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would say to my very good friend and namesake, if you can do better, do it.

I'm very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule that would allow the House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act. If Congress doesn't act by July 1, undergraduate students in this Nation, all over this Nation, will see a hike in their student loan interest rates.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a friend of mine, the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I would inform my colleague from Utah that I have no further requests for time, and I would ask whether or not he has additional speakers.

I am looking forward to the brilliant verbiage.

Following on from the previous discussion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment, which has been discussed, in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I am tempted to take the 8\1/2\ minutes and, perhaps, not offer as much brilliant verbiage but at least add, without hyperbole, the continuing concern that all of us should have.

I agree with my friend from Utah when he points to the fact that there has been legislation that has come out of the House of Representatives, regardless of who was in the majority, and that it has gone over to the other body and nothing has transpired. But when the American people look at Congress, they are not looking just at the House of Representatives or just at the United States Senate--it is all of us--and it is our responsibility here in the House, particularly as the body that has the Ways and Means Committee, which generates the financial circumstances of this country that ultimately is voted on.

It's our responsibility, in my judgment, to undertake to answer one simple question regarding this loan thing:

Why is it that college students are going to be required to have loan obligations that raise their loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent when Bank X and Bank Y can borrow money from each other for little or nothing at all? That does not make any sense.

We can't do these children this way in this country, and we have an absolute responsibility to all of them to give them the opportunities that many of us had. People here in this House that have come here by way of student loans and some of them have had those opportunities, why not give these children that chance?

Mr. Speaker, the most common critiques of this Congress have been bipartisanship and dysfunction. This rule today for these three bills shows that the Speaker and majority leader are perfectly content with that characterization of their work. Congress doesn't have to be this way.

It isn't always like this. It wasn't like this when I came here in 1992. It was not like this for the greater portion of a decade after I came here in 1992. Instead of appointing budget conferees, instead of passing a farm bill in a bipartisan way, instead of fixing the pending student loan interest rate, instead of replacing the sequester that has been monstrously all over this Nation hindering our economic recovery and instead of preventing us from yet another game of chicken, which we will be doing sometime in the fall over the debt ceiling, we're considering three purely political bills that will only create more partisanship among us and might, I add, ain't going nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, Congress can and must do better.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for votes on June 19, 2013, I would have cast the following votes:

Roll No. 253 Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 271--``No'' Vote.

Roll No. 254 Motion on Agreeing to the Resolution H. Res. 271--``No'' Vote.

Roll No. 255 Motion on Approving the Journal--``No'' Vote.

Roll No. 256 On Agreeing to the Amendment McGovern of Massachusetts Part B Amendment No. 1--``Yes'' Vote.

Roll No. 257 On Agreeing to the Amendment Foxx of North Carolina Part B Amendment No. 3--``No'' Vote.

Roll No. 258 On Agreeing to the Amendment Broun of Georgia Part B Amendment No. 5--``No'' Vote.

Roll No. 259 On Agreeing to the Amendment Blumenauer of Oregon Part B Amendment No. 8--``Yes'' Vote.

Roll No. 260 On Agreeing to the Amendment Blumenauer of Oregon Part B Amendment No. 9--``Yes'' Vote.

Roll No. 261 On Agreeing to the Amendment Kaptur of Ohio/Hastings of Florida Part B Amendment No. 14--``Yes'' Vote.

Roll No. 262 On Agreeing to the Amendment Royce of California/Engel of New York Part B Amendment No. 15--``Yes'' Vote.

Roll No. 263 On Agreeing to the Amendment Chabot of Ohio Part B Amendment No. 16--``No'' Vote.

Mr. Chair, had I been present for the following votes, I would have voted accordingly: roll No. 264 on agreeing to the amendment Brooks of Alabama Part B Amendment No. 18-- ``no'' vote; roll No. 265 on agreeing to the amendment Butterfield of North Carolina Part B Amendment No. 25--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 266 on agreeing to the amendment Marino of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 26--``no'' Vote; roll No. 267 on agreeing to the amendment Schweikert of Arizona Part B Amendment No. 30--``no'' Vote roll No. 268 on agreeing to the amendment Tierney of Massachusetts Part B Amendment No. 32--``yes'' Vote; 1,6. Roll No. 269 on agreeing to the amendment Polis of Colorado Part B Amendment No. 37--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 270 on agreeing to the amendment Garamendi of California Part B Amendment No. 38--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 271 on agreeing to the amendment Marino of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 41--``no'' Vote; roll No. 272 on agreeing to the amendment McClintock of California Part B Amendment No. 43--``no'' Vote; roll No. 273 on agreeing to the amendment Gibson/ Meeks/Sean Maloney of New York Part B Amendment No. 44--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 274 on agreeing to the amendment Walorski of Indiana Part B Amendment No. 45--``no'' Vote; roll No. 275 on agreeing to the amendment Courtney of Connecticut Part B Amendment No. 46--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 276 on agreeing to the amendment Kind of Wisconsin Part B Amendment No. 47--``no'' Vote; roll No. 277 on agreeing to the amendment Carney/Radel of Delaware Part B Amendment No. 48--``no'' Vote; roll No. 278 on agreeing to the amendment Goodlatte/Scott (GA)/ Moran/Polis/Meeks/ DeGette/Lee of Virginia Part B Amendment No. 99-- ``yes'' Vote; roll No. 279 on agreeing to the amendment Radel of Florida Part B Amendment No. 49--``no'' Vote; roll No. 280 on agreeing to the amendment Walberg of Michigan Part B Amendment No. 50--``yes'' Vote; roll No. 281 on agreeing to the amendment Pitts/Davis (IL) of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 98--``no'' Vote; roll No. 282 on agreeing to the amendment Fortenberry of Nebraska Part B Amendment No. 100--``no'' Vote; roll No. 283 on agreeing to the amendment Huelskamp of Kansas Part B Amendment No. 101--``no'' Vote; roll No. 284 on agreeing to the amendment Southerland of Florida Part B Amendment No. 102--``no'' Vote.

Mr. Chair, my amendment today is simple: No bees, no food. The amendment improves federal coordination in addressing the documented decline of managed and native pollinators, as well as promotes the long-term viability of honey bees, wild bees, and other beneficial insects in agriculture.

Beekeepers and their honey bees are vitally important partners in American agriculture.

They provide essential pollination services to a diverse array of important agricultural commodities. Bee pollinated crops represent an estimated $20 billion in value annually.

Furthermore, one in three bites of food that we eat directly or indirectly comes from pollinators.

Unfortunately, our honey bees, native bees and other pollinating partners are showing signs of decline.

Colony collapse Disorder (CCD), multiple pests and diseases continue to plague beekeepers and their honey bees, as well as affect agriculture producers who depend on their pollination services.

This means that our food and job security, and healthy ecosystems are also at risk.

A recent study released by the National Academy of Sciences on the status of pollinators in North America, highlighted the lack of research and coordination in the federal government when it comes to pollinator health and protection.

In 2008, I offered an amendment to the Farm Bill aimed at protecting pollinators through additional research at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Those provisions went a long way in highlighting the seriousness of pollinator health decline and Colony Collapse Disorder.

I am pleased to see those provisions preserved and extended in this year's Farm Bill. While progress has been made, we still have a long way to go. My amendment will help address these issues.

Bee health is affected by the activities of a number of federal agencies who are dedicated to finding a solution.

But this is a complex problem and it requires a sophisticated and multi-agency response.

For example, USDA activities alone include the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the National Institutes of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the Farm Services Agency (FSA), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the U.S. Forest Service.

Forage area for bees can be enhanced through federal programs on conservation and public lands that are managed by the U.S. Departments of Interior and Transportation.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for striking the delicate balance between pollinator health and the ability of our nation's growers to produce strong crop yields.

And, of course, agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), as well as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency all have a role in ensuring a safe food supply and level playing field capable of supporting our nation's commercial beekeepers.

Specifically, my amendment: promotes cooperation between federal agencies to support the long-term viability and health of pollinator populations including to share guidance and technical expertise, establishes a task force on

bee health and commercial beekeeping to coordinate federal efforts; requires the production of a report on the United States' and international efforts to address the decline; requests regular monitoring and reporting on health and population status of pollinators (including bees, birds, bats, and other species); encourages agencies to utilize the best available peer-reviewed science on environmental and chemical stressors to pollinators, including giving consideration to international efforts addressing pollinator declines; as well as encourages the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct feasibility studies for the creation of a new bee lab at ARS, and the modernization of current facilities.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for the time and urge the Committee to make my amendment in order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ms. Antoinette ``Toni'' Jones Pauline on the occasion of her 75th birthday. An outstanding educator, mother, and grandmother, I am truly blessed to be able to count Toni among my dearest friends. Throughout the years, she always has been a great source of motivation and inspiration to me, and exemplifies what it means to serve the community.

Toni was born in Gainesville, Florida to Allen Quinn Jones, Jr. and Glovine. She spent her early childhood in Gainesville before moving to Fernandina Beach, where she attended Peck High School and was a majorette. Following her graduation from Peck High School in 1956, Toni went on to continue her education at my alma mater, Florida A&M University, and then Nova Southeastern University, where she graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Library Science and a Master's degree in Media Science, respectively.

With a love for education, Toni began her career in the Florida public school system as a librarian at Bradenton Elementary. She continued working at various libraries in schools throughout Broward County, including Chester A. Moore Elementary and Dillard High School. Wanting to do more to help those who are underrepresented and underserved, Toni found work with both the State of Florida and Broward County to improve migrant education. For nearly seven years, she dedicated her time to working with migrant camps in communities all across the State. Toni then returned to the Broward County Public Library System, where she spent the latter years of her career as the Head Reference Librarian at the Pompano Branch Library.

After over 43 years of public service, Toni now fills her days spending time with her granddaughter and volunteering in her community. She is also a lifelong member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Toni's 75th birthday, I would like to wish her and her entire family all the very best.

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

I'd also like to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida, the former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, who clearly championed there and here, likewise, regular order.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2216 and H.R. 2217, as outlined by my colleague from the other side, two appropriations measures that fund military construction and family housing projects, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security.

Once again, my friends on the other side are using this particular rule as yet another attempt to deem and pass the controversial budget offered by our colleague Paul Ryan.

This is exactly what they did in April of last year when they reneged on their promises in the Budget Control Act and also during consideration of H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations for fiscal year 2013.

My Republican colleagues have been calling for regular order; however, both the House and the Senate each passed a budget this year and regular order would have them go to conference to negotiate a budget for the 113th Congress. But instead of appointing conferees, the Speaker of the House and the House Republican leadership are deeming the Ryan budget passed.

Someone in a graphic that I saw said they're deeming the impossible deem.

I, as one exemplar, should know, having served on the Rules Committee in the majority when we were going forward. We did consider deem and pass, and we learned along the way that that was going to skew the process. Therefore, we retreated from that, and I would urge my friends, the Republicans, to do likewise.

They would rather see, it appears, greater military spending, at the expense of vital programs that millions of Americans rely on, than work with Democrats to replace the sequester and properly fund our Nation's government.

Now, I'm not going through the litany of all the things that the sequester has cut and the problems that it has caused. Most people know that. But the Meals on Wheels program has been the one put forward, and I just think it is plain dumb and crazy to not take care of older people in our society. Never mind all the ideology, all the deficit, all the other hawk talk, who cares when someone that is a grandmother goes to sleep hungry because we didn't do what we should have done and that we passed a foolish sequester that has caused these problems.

As a result, we're working with different budget target levels. In the House, it is $0.966 trillion and approximately $1.07 trillion for the Senate, which both sides agreed upon in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

These differences are important. The reductions imposed by the House 302(b) allocations mean greater cuts for agencies and programs that already face difficult budget decisions due to sequestration. The two funding bills coming before us for consideration this week, along with those for defense and the legislative branch, are the only ones expected to receive an increase over the 2013 post-sequester levels. This means that we'll be forced to sacrifice health care, environment, education, transportation, and other important spending priorities in order to meet the new overall reductions required by the sequester.

Furthermore, the appropriation for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs is the only budget with a 302(b) allocation that is higher than pre-sequestration funding levels, whereas funding for Homeland Security, in my opinion, is unacceptably low in some areas, and the bill is encumbered by very, very troublesome riders, and I would urge the Members of the House to look carefully at those riders.

Consequently, the 302(b) allocation would provide a 22 percent reduction to the pre-sequestration budget for health care, education, and labor programs. In my opinion, that's just plain outrageous.

Republicans are again asking--I'm fond of saying in the Rules Committee that when I was 11 and 12 years old, my favorite radio program that my grandmother would let me listen to on Saturdays was a program called ``Let's Pretend.'' Little did I know 65 years later that I would be in an august body that is also in and of itself sitting around with people pretending that things are happening that are not happening.

Republicans are asking us to pretend that the Ryan budget is law, when in fact it is not. This unilateral action is a formula for conflict, and I predict for you that that's what we'll have. While I appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship, and those gentlemen who came yesterday, Mr. Price and Mr. Bishop, the ranking members, and Judge Carter and his counterpart did an exceptional job, as did John Culberson, in showing this body that there can be bipartisan efforts. They did so, and I would hope that would serve for the rest of appropriations and for this body to take notice that people can work together when they try. And that bipartisanship led to the funding levels contained in both of these bills that we are considering under this rule. It is regrettable that it was not extended to the entire process.

Simply put, the framework within which we are considering these bills--the Ryan budget that House Republicans have deemed as passed--is a nonstarter.

Administration folks said yesterday that unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an overall budget framework that supports our recovery and enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure--and a footnote right there: Do we need to be reminded about the bridge that fell in the State of Washington, about the number of bridges in this Nation that are in disrepair and have been in disrepair? When Bill Clinton became President, he advocated that there were 14,000 bridges in need of repair, and he asked for a little bit of money that we should have allocated then. Now we have thousands of bridges in disrepair, and we are going about a process like this ignoring them.

Where do we get the innovation at NIH for the health needs that are coming and the technological needs that are coming? How do we protect national security for our economy to be able to compete in the future?

The President's senior advisers indicated that they would recommend to the President that he veto H.R. 2216 and H.R. 2217, and any other legislation that implements the House deemed budget framework. As I've said time and again, this is no way to run a budget process, and no way to conduct the business of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague began by saying that's as close to regular order as we can get. I would tell him, close, but no cigar.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from New York, Mrs. Lowey, who has been on the Appropriations Committee at times when we didn't deem things and we did, in fact, pass appropriations measures.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mrs. Lowey, just before you leave, you have just an additional few seconds. Will the gentlelady yield to me?

I just want to say, in addition to the fact that Chris Van Hollen came to the Rules Committee five times, Harry Reid has offered eight times to go to conference and Republicans have blocked it. And I just want that to be understood, because later on we're going to hear somebody stand up here and say it's Democrats that are holding it up, and it's not.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my very good friend, the minority whip of the House of Representatives.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

May I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased and privileged at this time to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

If we defeat the previous question, we'll offer an amendment to the rule that strikes the provision of the rule that deems the passage of the Ryan budget and will allow the House to consider the resolution calling on Speaker Boehner to proceed to conference on the budget.

It is time for the majority to follow regular House procedure by immediately requesting a conference and appointing conferees to negotiate a fiscal 2014 budget resolution conference agreement with the Senate.

To discuss our proposal, I'm very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have no further speakers, and I'm prepared to close. So I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I have to ask the question at the beginning that Mr. Van Hollen has persisted in asking, and I as well and others: Why are you afraid to go to conference? I have no idea why you can't do that and follow the regular order.

I agree with my colleague that this bipartisan measure is a very good thing that we are bringing here, but I also agree with other speakers that when we finish doing these two bills--and I predict for my friend that we will not reach a single other measure of appropriations for the reason that if you're going to cut 22 percent from everything else and you're going to hold harmless the things that you and I like, then be assured we are in serious trouble as the appropriations process moves forward.

We have a responsibility to implement a budget framework that supports programs which help Americans provide for their families, to stay in their homes, and remain competitive in the global economy. The Ryan budget picks winners and losers, and we are picking two winners today, and we are going to have 11 losers on down the road.

``Deem and pass'' did not work the last Congress, it didn't work when Democrats thought that they could try it, and it ain't gonna work now. It is long past time that House Republicans work together with Democrats in conference, just as these two committees did, to negotiate a budget and put an end to the devastating sequester.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time after I ask the question one more time: Why are you afraid to go to conference?

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two American heroes, Marine PFC Oscar A. Martinez and Navy Master-at-Arms 2nd Class (MA2) Michael J. Brodsky, who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. They are the first residents of the City of North Lauderdale, Florida to be killed while serving in the Armed Forces since it was founded 50 years ago, and I am truly honored to have had the privilege to represent them in Congress. My heartfelt condolences go out to the families and friends of these two young men for their loss.

PFC Oscar Martinez was born in Dallas in 1984. Originally from El Salvador, his family settled in South Florida in 1987. Oscar's mother died when he was a child, leaving him and his three younger siblings to be raised by his uncle, Rene Martinez, and the children's grandmother, Maria Marta Mendez. According to his sister, Morena Martinez, Oscar dreamt of being a Marine ever since he was little, and was determined to be the best at what he did.

Oscar joined the Marine Corps in 2003, shortly before graduating from North Lauderdale High School, and was assigned to the I Marine Expeditionary Force based out of Camp Pendleton, California. Sadly, he was killed on October 12, 2004 when a mortar fired by insurgents exploded at a U.S. base where he was eating with his unit in the Iraqi province of Anbar. He was just 19 years old.

MA2 Michael Brodsky, of Tamarac, Florida, enlisted in the Navy in 2001, following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. He was stationed in the security department at Sasebo Naval Base in Japan from 2002 to 2005 before earning the award of Distinguished Graduate from the Military Working Dog Course at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. Mike also served at Naval Support Activity (NAS) Bahrain. In December 2010, he was assigned to Navy Region Southwest Security Detachment in San Diego, California.

On July 7, 2012, Mike was on patrol in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom when his unit started taking fire. He rushed to protect his dog Jackson by putting him back in the truck as he was trained to do, and then returned to the fight. It was then that Mike stepped on the pressure plate of an improvised explosive device (IED), and the blast took both his legs. In critical condition and unresponsive, he was flown to Germany where doctors tried to save him. On the morning of July 17, 2012, Mike was awarded the Purple Heart. Tragically, the 33-year-old died from his injuries on July 21, 2012 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. He is survived by his daughter Natalia, parents Debra and Steven Brodsky, younger brother Corey Brodsky, and grandfather Stanley Brodsky.

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, 2013, the City of North Lauderdale will be dedicating a fallen soldier statue in memory of PFC Oscar Martinez and MA2 Michael Brodsky, who gave

their lives in order to protect freedom and democracy around the world. As we recently observed the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War and over 11 years of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, we must remember all those who have fallen in service to our great country. Our nation owes them, as well as the millions of brave servicemen and women who have served and continue to serve, an eternal debt of gratitude. Their service will not be forgotten.