Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mary Gaile Edwards Wingard, who died peacefully in the presence of her beloved family on Tuesday, January 27, 2015. Gaile was a pillar of the Jacksonville community. An avid volunteer and both loving mother and grandmother, she was dearly loved by everyone who knew her. The First Coast will truly miss this incredible woman.

With a ready smile, quick wit, and abundant southern charm, Gaile made everyone she met feel at ease. She lived her life with a passionate devotion to her loved ones and her family. Whether it was volunteering for one of the numerous organizations around town or simply living the role of loving grandmother, Gaile never did anything half-way. Jacksonville will be forever thankful for her selfless dedication.

Gaile's quiet strength and loving spirit will long be remembered by our city. She is survived by her husband, Dr. Joseph Theodore Wingard, Jr.; her children, Joseph Theodore Wingard III and his wife Pam, Jonathan David Wingard and his wife Heather, and Katherine Wingard Sherman and her husband Nate; her grandsons, Matthew Alexander Wingard, Jonathan Michael Wingard, Jonathan Ramsay Wingard, Joseph Theodore Wingard, Nathaniel Alden Sherman, Jr., and an unborn granddaughter to be named Beatrice Gaile Sherman; her sister Jeanne Edwards Yarborough; and six nieces.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the Wingard family. I am forever grateful to have known such an amazing woman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in strong support of H.R. 5656, the Feed the Future Global Food Security Act of 2014, on the eve of passage of the Fiscal Year 2015 Omnibus that provides just over $1 billion to the Feed the Future Program. The passage of this bill would authorize this USAID program for one year at just under Fiscal Year 2014 level, bringing stability to this successful program while giving Congress future oversight.

Feed the Future through its whole-of-government approach has been successful in promoting both agricultural-based and market-based development and in improving the nutrition of women and children. This creates healthy populations and gives livelihoods to these families, both of which grow these developing economies.

The focus on food security and agriculture development of Feed the Future started during the Bush Administration and has continued through today.

But, Mr. Speaker, today more than 800 million people around the world still suffer from chronic hunger. Many of the world's poor live in rural areas and rely on agriculture for a living, and growth in the agriculture sector is one of the best ways to spur the kind of economic growth that reduces poverty.

In 2013 alone, Feed the Future reached more than 12.5 million children with nutrition interventions to help ensure a stronger and more successful future. It has helped nearly 7 million farmers and food producers use new technologies and management practices. And it has leveraged more than $10 billion through complementary efforts in private sector commitments in African agriculture--the majority from African businesses.

With broad support from U.S. universities, NGOs, faith-based organizations, the private sector, and beneficiaries, Feed the Future authorization offers an opportunity for Congress to put its stamp on this program and ensure that we have the appropriate oversight measures in place.

Passage of this legislation will demonstrate that we are serious about finding commonsense solutions to one of the world's greatest challenges--hunger--creating economic stability overseas that will benefit the American people as well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 5656, the Feed the Future Global Food Security Act of 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Rogers for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership in this appropriations process.

As chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, let me highlight a few areas in our part of the bill.

Overall, we reduce spending by $246 million in an effort to rein in the out-of-control spending. Some areas are increased, some are decreased. For instance, law enforcement receives an increase. Drug abuse prevention receives an increase. Small business receives an increase, as does women's business centers. They help grow our economy and create jobs.

On the other hand, there are some agencies that don't do so well. They waste taxpayer dollars and become ineffective. I think a lot of people agree that the Internal Revenue Service has betrayed the trust of the American people. They have wasted taxpayer dollars. They have singled out individuals and groups of individuals based on their political philosophy, and they have not cooperated with congressional investigation. Therefore, their funding is reduced by $346 million.

All in all, it is a balanced approach. We spend less money than we spent last year. It is a good portion of the bill.

Let me take a moment to say thank you to Rodney Frelinghuysen, chairman of the Defense Subcommittee upon which I sit. I want to thank him for his tireless work in this area, for allowing members like me to help draft legislation that clearly puts our men and women in uniform first, clearly helps save lives by making sure that we have the best qualified, the best trained, the best equipped military, and it makes all Americans safer.

All in all, it is a great bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observance of National IBD Awareness Week, December 1-7, 2014, which bring attention to over 1.4 million Americans affected by Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, collectively known as inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD. These disorders impact the gastrointestinal tract, the area of the body where digestion takes place. They cause inflammation of the intestine, which leads to ongoing symptoms and complications.

Although anyone can get IBD, it is most commonly diagnosed in adolescents and young adults between 15 and 25 years old. There is currently no known cause or cure for IBD, and individuals with IBD may suffer from various symptoms from mild to severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, fever, and intestinal bleeding. The impacts are devastating to both patients and their families.

While we still do not have all the answers, there is hope. An increasing number of genes have been identified--over 100 today--that may cause an increase in the risk of developing IBD, confirming that IBD has a strong genetic component. With these discoveries and new technological advances, researchers are working furiously to find cures.

Despite this, the unpredictable nature of these painful and debilitating digestive diseases creates a significant burden on the community and economy. Every year, there is more than $1.26 billion in direct and indirect costs to the US healthcare system due to hospitalizations as a result of IBD complications.

As the co-chair of the Crohn's and Colitis Caucus, a bi-partisan group of Congressional Members dedicated to educating the public and other Members on IBD, I urge my fellow Caucus members and colleagues to join me in recognizing IBD Awareness week and the millions of Americans suffering from this disease. I would also like to take this time to honor my colleague and fellow co-chair, Jim Moran, for his leadership over the years in improving access to treatments for IBD for this vulnerable population. He has been an incredible partner in this fight to prevent and cure IBD. He will be missed in this Chamber as he moves on to the next chapter in his life.

With the support of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America, I encourage all Americans to join in the fight to cure, raise awareness, and increase research on this debilitating disease. Together, with the help of researchers, educators, medical professionals, patients, and families, we can find a cure and end this devastating disease for millions of people around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I thank Chairman Sessions for the work that he has done all along the way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge the adoption of this rule and the underlying legislation, particularly the ABLE Act, which the chairman just talked about.

Eight years ago I first filed this legislation, and an awful lot of people have spent a lot of time and a lot of energy bringing us to where we are today.

The gentleman before me spoke about how Congress is often dysfunctional. As we look at the ABLE Act today, I think we will have a chance to see what can happen when people work together, when Democrats and Republicans come together, when the House and the Senate work together to do what is best for the people of our country.

I think it is a great illustration of what we can do, and the fact that we have over 380 cosponsors in the House, over 70 sponsors in the United States Senate, is a demonstration of that, what can be accomplished when we put our minds to it and work together.

It has been pointed out that most of us know someone with a severe disability, might be Down syndrome, might be autism. But sometimes it is hard for us to understand the difficulties that they have to go through, along with their families. They face challenges that we can hardly even imagine sometimes.

The ABLE Act seeks to try to remedy that situation, to bring justice, to bring peace of mind to millions of American families who have to live with disabilities every day. It does that by creating these tax- free savings accounts, allows the money that they set aside to grow tax-free as long as they use those proceeds for qualified expenses. And what that does is it simply gives those individuals with disabilities a chance for the American Dream.

They have hopes and dreams just like we all do, and this will give them the tool to open the door to a brighter future, the way to realize their full potential.

We help other people save for college by creating 529 tax-advantaged accounts. We allow people to save for their health care by creating health savings accounts. We allow people to save for their retirements through individual retirement accounts and 401(k)'s.

It seems only fair that we offer individuals with disabilities the same tax-advantaged tools, so they can realize their dreams, maybe get a job, maybe save for the future, maybe go to college.

I just hope that, as we adopt this rule and as we move into the ABLE Act, that we will all continue to work together because I can't think of anything more special, as more of a privilege, than for us as a Congress to speak up for those who so often can't speak for themselves.

I urge the adoption of the rule and of the underlying bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Let me first just say thank you to Chairman Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for his hard work in bringing this bill out of the Ways and Means Committee with a unanimous vote. I thank him and his staff who have worked long and hard to bring this bill to the floor today.

On a personal note, as Chairman Camp leaves the Congress this year, I want to express my thanks and gratitude for his friendship over the years and for his leadership not only for the people of Michigan, but for the people of America. You will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the ABLE Act, I think that this is a great example of what can be accomplished when people work together. People say we don't always work together, but here is a case where people have come together--Democrats and Republicans, the House working with the Senate--for the common good of the people of America.

I think all of us probably know somebody, either a family member or maybe a friend of the family--somebody--who has a disability. It might be Down syndrome, or it might be autism, or it might be some other disability, but sometimes, I don't think we understand the difficulty and the challenges

that those individuals and their families face. They are beyond our comprehension sometimes because we are lucky in the way that we can live.

The ABLE Act seeks to address that inequity. It seeks to help those people who so often society overlooks or maybe the government overlooks. The ABLE Act is very simple, it is very straightforward, it is understandable, and we have come to this after 8 years of hard work.

When I first filed the bill in 2006, there were very few cosponsors of this legislation, but over the years, an awful lot of people on both sides of the aisle have worked long and hard to make this legislation better. Some of the individuals who have these disabilities come to Washington every year. They have gone out, and they have talked to their individual Representatives.

That is one of the reasons we have 380 cosponsors in the House. It is because those individuals have gone to an office and have sat down and have said, ``This is something that would make a difference in my life.'' And those Members have said, ``We want to help.'' The same thing has happened in the Senate.

You heard Chairman Camp talk about how that takes place. Individuals with disabilities can create a tax-free savings account, put their own money in that account, and have a chance to actually save for their futures.

Those dollars grow tax free, and as long as they are used for qualified expenses, such as medical expenses or maybe educational or job training expenses, they can use those proceeds. We already allow folks to help themselves by setting up tax-free savings accounts to save for college. It is called a 529.

We allow people to save for their retirements through a tax-free savings account called an IRA or a 401(k), and we allow people to save for their health insurance by the creation of health savings accounts. It only seems fair to me and to all of us that we would provide the same sort of treatment to those individuals who are less fortunate than we are.

Now, we have a situation in which the ABLE accounts will open a door to a bright future to millions of Americans. It will give those individuals a chance to realize their hopes and their dreams, to be part of the American Dream, and to be able to achieve their full potential.

I can't think of anything that is more rewarding. I can't think of any greater privilege than to speak out for people who can't always speak for themselves. This ABLE Act will bring justice, and it will bring peace of mind to millions of American families who live with disabilities every day. I think that is something worth fighting for.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jacksonville's very own Carlton Smith, Executive Vice President of Heavy Equipment Resources of Florida, Inc. (HERO FL), upon receiving the Small Business Administration's 2014 Regional and State of Florida Small Business Exporter of the Year Award. It is an honor to represent Carlton and his thriving export company, located in the Fourth Congressional District of Florida. Small businesses, like HERO FL, are the backbone of this country and are job creators that are revitalizing our nation's economy.

HERO FL began in 2008, when Carlton, his father Leslie, and uncle George, decided to take advantage of the opportunities that the expansion of JAXPORT had to offer. Expanding on their already successful commercial landscaping business, Carlton saw an opportunity to branch out internationally, exporting machinery and other materials to construction and mining industries across the globe. And so, HERO FL was born.

HERO FL began specializing in worldwide exports of components, spare parts, and heavy machinery to mining and earthmoving industries. The company's ability to deliver hard-to-find parts quickly and efficiently to remote mining locations throughout the world has deservedly garnered a lot of attention.

In addition to the prestigious Small Business Administration award, HERO FL was recently honored with the President's ``E'' Award for its efforts to expand national exports. Created under President John F. Kennedy, the ``E'' Award recognizes people, firms or organizations that make major contributions in U.S. exports. Today, the ``E'' Award is the highest recognition any U.S. entity can receive for noteworthy export promotion efforts.

Due to HERO FL's success, today, 100 percent of its revenue stems from export sales and from 2010 to 2013, HERO FL's sales grew an astounding 344 percent. This is a true American success story and should serve as inspiration for all small business owners. I am proud that the First Coast can claim Carlton Smith and his prosperous company as its own.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and Members of the House of Representatives join me in this very special congressional salute to Carlton Smith and everyone at HERO FL.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I want to bring attention to proposed legislation known as the ABLE Act, or Achieving a Better Life Experience. It is something that is important to me and to a lot of Members of the House.

I first filed this legislation 7 years ago. Since then, we have come a long way. Today, 377 Members of the House and 74 United States Senators are cosponsors of this legislation. There is no piece of legislation in the Congress today that enjoys more bipartisan, bicameral support than the ABLE Act. Tomorrow, the Ways and Means Committee in the House will take up this legislation, and I hope that they will pass it with a favorable vote.

Just what is the ABLE Act? It is a piece of legislation that attempts to help those individuals with disabilities achieve their full potential. How does it do that? Well, it allows individuals with disabilities to set up a tax-free savings account. They take that account, it grows tax free, and they can use the proceeds, as long as they meet qualified expenses.

Those individuals face challenges that you and I can sometimes hardly imagine. They might be medical, transportation, education, or housing needs. We already allow other individuals to use tax-exempt savings accounts to help them.

If you want to save for retirement, you can set up a tax-free savings account called a 401(k). If you want to set

up a tax-free savings account to help you go to college, you can do that through what is called a 529. If you want to help with your health care, you can set up a health savings account. It seems only fair that we level the playing field and allow those individuals the same opportunity.

Let me introduce you to someone by the name of Sydney Leach. She lives in Jacksonville, Florida. Today, she is a fifth-grader at Crown Point Elementary School. She has Down syndrome. When she was born, her proud mom and dad, Stacy and Jeff Leach, made a commitment to make sure that she would not only have a happy life, but that she would be able to realize her hopes and her dreams and her full potential.

Soon they realized that when you raise a child with Down syndrome, you face challenges that a lot of people can't imagine. Unlike her classmates, she had to have special behavioral counseling. She had to have special medical care. She needed individual counseling. So it was difficult.

Her parents then found out that if you have Medicaid, you are limited to $2,000 for the amount of assets that you can have in your name. If her parents or loved ones wanted to give her a gift, they jeopardized the care that she needed.

So the ABLE Act seeks to correct those inequities. It says that you can, number one, set up a tax-free savings account and let those proceeds grow. Number two, it won't count against your $2,000 limitation on assets.

This is America, home of the American Dream. Individuals with disabilities ought to be able to live the American Dream, just like you and I. They ought to be able to have an education and work on their own, if they can. They ought to be able to save for the future. The ABLE Act allows them to do just that.

We live in a great, prosperous country. Sometimes, we are called upon to speak out for the people that can't speak out, to stand up and seek justice for those that can't seek justice on their own.

The ABLE Act will have a positive impact on millions of people with disabilities all across this land. That is worth fighting for. I hope soon the ABLE Act will become the law of the land.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5016, and that I may include tabular materials on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing this initiative to my attention.

As he said, the SEC recently announced that issuers and underwriters of municipal securities are required to self-report violations of the Federal securities laws relating to representations and bond offerings. I understand the gentleman's concern that this is a massive undertaking, and to identify all the series of bonds sold and to make sure that all disclosures are made accurately and timely is a huge undertaking.

So I look forward to working with you regarding your concerns and to find some solutions.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Mr. Wenstrup from Ohio, and I yield to him.

Well, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I share his outrage over the Internal Revenue Service giving extra scrutiny to certain 501(c)(4) groups based on their political ideology.

This bill includes numerous, but necessary, provisions in response to their numerous inappropriate activities. These activities must not be tolerated, and voting for this bill will go a long way toward making Congress' and the public's displeasure felt.

So I thank the gentleman for bringing this forward, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want to rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment points out that you have got to have a thorough review, and if you don't consider the true implications on the U.S. economy and the U.S. taxpayers, then you have got a problem. So it is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I think when you look at the amendment, the gentleman wants to take money away from the Supreme Court and give money to the White House. What he had to say didn't seem to bear any relevance to what the amendment said. It was entertaining talk. I know he is free to offer any amendment he wants to offer. He could come down and do a 1-minute and talk about what he just talked about, and he could do a 5-minute Special Order and talk about what he talked about.

I am not sure that the amendment that he offered is serious in the sense of why he is tampering with Supreme Court funding and tampering with White House funding. I just would urge my colleagues to say we enjoyed the chat. I appreciate him bringing that to our attention.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's effort in terms of minimum wage legislation, but I would simply remind him that this is an appropriations bill. The Appropriations Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction as it relates to minimum wage.

As he points out, if he has legislation ready to go, I would just encourage him to introduce that at the appropriate place, have the appropriate discussions, and move forward there. But this is not the time or the place. Again, I appreciate his effort to legislate.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

I think we all believe in commonsense regulation--and we have plenty of that--but the gentleman has pointed out that so often well- intentioned rules and regulations have unintended consequences.

I don't think anybody believes that we don't have enough regulation. Any time there is a problem, somebody suggests that we spend more money, we pass another rule, we pass another law.

What I think we need and what this gentleman is talking about is that we need common sense. We need to protect investors, but we need to do it in a reasonable way.

So this is an amendment that I think makes the point that so often the rules

are bad for investors, they are bad for the economy, and that shouldn't be the case.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Yes, I am.

Mr. Speaker, let me just tell the gentleman that he will be happy to know that we have already taken care of all of his concerns in this bill.

We have a pretty good bill that we have worked on, Mr. Speaker. The bill has been on the floor now for 3 days. This is the first time this subcommittee bill has actually been to the full House since 2007. All of the Members of the House had a chance to look at the bill, and they had a chance to offer amendments. After that process, we now have a good bill that is even better.

I thank the gentleman for clearing the well.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have a good bill that this process has actually made even better. It is a spending bill, and we know that the government needs money to provide services. Government needs something more right now, and we have tried to provide that. The government needs discipline to rein in spending. The government needs the courage to make decisions even when they are hard, and government needs a commitment to make sure that every task of government is accomplished more efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before, because I will tell you, if life is going to change in America, life has to change right here in Washington, D.C., and this bill takes a giant step forward in making that change.

First of all, we rein in this out-of-control spending that has been going on for so long. We have said for four straight years we are spending less money this year than we spent last year, and that is quite an accomplishment in itself. How do we do that? We do it just like every American business does, like every American family. They sit down. They take the money that they have, and they set priorities. Then they make some tough choices. That is what we have done.

We take agencies and programs that are no longer vital to the operation of the Federal Government or that have a history of wasting taxpayer resources, and in some cases, we get rid of them. Nine agencies are gone under this bill. We also take things like the Small Business Administration, which actually supports small business and assists in private sector job creation, and we add money to it because it is going to help turn the country around.

Another thing we do is rein in this out-of-control administration and out-of-control bureaucracy. How do we do that? Let's just take, for instance, the IRS.

I think most people in this House would say that the IRS has betrayed the trust of the American people and that they have got a long way to go before they restore that trust. So what we have done in this bill is we have said we are going to rein in that out-of-control spending because your funding is going to be reduced. We send you back to the core issues, and we are not going to give any more money until you prove to us that you can be a good steward of the money that we have already given you.

We also say to the IRS no more wasting money on lavish conferences and silly videos. We say no more intimidating individuals and groups of individuals based on their political philosophy. No more.

We say no more drafting rules and trying to shut down freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by our Constitution. We say, listen, we don't want you meddling anymore in our daily lives, much less our health care.

If you are like me and you are tired of seeing taxpayers' dollars go down the drain, if you are like me and you are tired of seeing nameless, faceless bureaucrats invade your life more and more and more, well, then join with me in saying we want responsible spending, we want reasonable regulation, we want to unleash the individual responsibility that has made our country great.

Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote ``yes'' on the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the chairman for yielding and for bringing this to the attention of the full House. I will refer to the gentleman as ``chairman'' because I have the pleasure of serving on the Defense Subcommittee, and he acts as the chairman of that.

Mr. Chairman, as the chairman has said, the National Security Council and the National Security Adviser have gotten into a bad habit, I think, of bypassing the Appropriations Committee, including the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee, when it comes to issues of national security. I can tell you firsthand that I have had situations in which I have asked for an update on some matters, and they haven't been followed up on.

I want to thank the chairman for his leadership in all things defense. I want to encourage my colleagues to follow his lead, and I urge that we adopt this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to let you know that we are happy to accept your amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho) in a colloquy and I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

As you point out, this is an extensive regulation. It is going to have a profound and far-reaching impact on our economy.

I believe these regulations, as you pointed out, are fraught with unintended consequences. As you point out, the regulation is creating headaches for many Americans who must report their foreign financial activities on the U.S. tax return, so they spend countless hours to prepare and file their tax forms necessary to comply with the regulation.

Mr. Chairman, we don't need more burdensome regulations. We need some pro-growth tax reform, to make it easier for Americans, whether living at home or living abroad, to comply with our tax laws.

Now, it is good to go after tax dodgers, that is understandable, but this is overkill, and I look forward to working with the gentleman to address these unintended consequences.

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

Amendment Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

Will the gentleman yield?

I would be pleased to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I yield to the gentleman.

Well, I appreciate the gentleman giving attention to this issue.

As you noted, we have included report language on money market funds within the bill. We are concerned about the issue, and we will work with you as this bill moves forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherman

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me see if I got this straight. Right now, manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Right?

And the Bank Secrecy Act still prohibits banks from laundering the proceeds of illegal activities. Is that right?

But in spite of the Controlled Substances Act and despite the Bank Secrecy Act, Treasury has given banks guidance on how to facilitate the sale of marijuana. That seems wrong, absolutely wrong. This amendment corrects that wrong, so I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman has made a couple of interesting points that I think bear emphasis. Some of the actions of the IRS have been outrageous, and we have talked about that from time to time. As the gentleman pointed out, this year, $63 million in bonuses were paid to IRS employees.

It is interesting they were paid by the new Commissioner when the prior Commissioner had decided that it was not appropriate to pay those bonuses, and then the new Commissioner testified before our subcommittee how he was outraged that he didn't have enough money to answer more than 61 percent of his phone calls.

I said: Sir, what is outrageous to me is you don't have enough money to answer the phone calls, which is the first thing you ought to do, yet you paid $63 million in bonuses, and then we find out that some of the people who received the bonuses were delinquent on their taxes.

I urge adoption of the amendment

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

Therefore, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want you to know that in the bill we have a provision that applies to the IRS. This is a little bit broader, but I think it is a good amendment, so I encourage folks to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I just got this amendment a little bit ago. I don't quite understand what the gentleman is trying to do.

As I read the amendment, it basically says you just can't pay Federal employees. If I am a Federal employee and somebody says you can't pay me this wage, I guess I can either come to work and not get paid or I can just decide that you decided not to pay me so I don't think I will come to work anymore.

I don't know how many people are affected by this, but I have got to believe

a lot of people would look at this and say: Gee, the gentleman from Florida says we are just not going to pay you.

I guess on behalf of the Federal employees, I have to oppose that, because I think all Federal employees ought to be paid. I don't think we should pass legislation saying they can't be paid.

So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to read this again. It says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay any individual at an annual rate of grade 1, step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

So if you are grade 1, step 6, it says you can't be paid at that rate. It doesn't say anything about raising your salary or lowering your salary. It just says you can't be paid.

I really think that this is something we ought to reject. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment even though I reserved a point of order.

I would just inquire if the gentleman intends to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, a little earlier, we had a discussion about this, and I pointed out that it is very clear that, right now, it is still illegal under Federal law to manufacture, to distribute, or to dispense marijuana. That is the Federal law.

There is also a Federal law that says banks can't launder the proceeds of illegal activities, and as we talked about earlier, we have got the fact that the Treasury has given guidance on how to facilitate the sale of marijuana.

The point is the law is the law. The Federal law, I just stated, and I don't think we can go around picking and choosing which States the Federal law applies to. The Federal law is the Federal law, and that is the way it ought to be.

I think that the fact that we have those two laws, when somebody violates those laws, that is wrong. Earlier this evening, we adopted an amendment that corrected that. This seeks to go back the other way.

I would just urge people to vote ``no'' on this because we have a Federal law that controls, and we can't pick and choose who gets to comply and who doesn't.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think every American taxpayer needs to be assured that their personal information is going to be held in strict confidence, and that is what this amendment does.

I think, particularly at a time when the IRS has demonstrated a lack of ability to either self-police or self-correct, when each week we read about a new revelation of some sort of bureaucratic incompetence or maybe willful disregard for the law, I think it is more important than ever to make sure that every taxpayer knows that personal information is going to be held in strict confidence.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to applaud him for correcting any procedural flaws. He makes an excellent point, and I accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from Tennessee. She makes an excellent point, and I think everyone agrees that we ought to try to rein in this culture of spending and put in place a culture of savings. I have been working my entire congressional career to do that.

One of the things that we do in the appropriations process is we have hearings. We listen to people. They try to justify their request. Sometimes when programs work well, they might receive an increase. When people are not doing very well, like the IRS, they have their request denied and are actually funded at lower levels.

What is interesting, last night on this floor, we added about $1 billion to our debt reduction by taking that billion dollars out of the IRS. So when we set our priorities, we do that day to day. In this case, we had 12 hearings.

If you look at our bill, there are actually nine programs that are just flat out eliminated. They are gone. It wasn't a 1 percent or an X percent cut. It was just, that is not a program that is vital to the functioning of the Federal Government so it is gone. It has been eliminated. There are several agencies where we have reduced their funding because we figured out that they could do with a little bit less.

But when you take an additional 1 percent across the board after you have had a lot of time and energy put into place to set the right priorities, I don't think you take into consideration that some programs are better than others.

I know my friend from Tennessee cares a lot about Women's Business Centers, and they received an increase under our appropriations bill because we think they are doing a great job. The Small Business Administration does great work at creating private sector jobs. The Women's Business Centers, because we thought they were doing well, they received an increase. Now, I don't know that she really wants to cut them.

She says she is not going to apply these cuts to the Federal judiciary, and I think that is appropriate. Actually, the Federal courts are pretty happy. Last night, several millions of dollars were added to the Federal courts.

I guess the simple point is that you have to take into consideration the merit of every program. If we didn't do anything and we just showed up one day and said how should we fund these people, then I think it is appropriate to say, well, let's just cut them across the board. But when you spend time and energy in setting the priorities and making hard choices, that is what we have done, and we are proud of the work we have done. I appreciate her compliment that we have done great work.

The fact that she would like to cut 1 more percent across the board I don't

think is the right way to observe the situation. I appreciate what she is trying to do, but I don't think in this case it is the right approach.

I would also like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I just want to agree with you that I don't think that taxpayers should bail out Detroit's pension shortfall or any other city's shortfall. So I want you to know that I support your amendment.

I think the gentlewoman has very well explained the amendment. We have a system that has been working well for 40 years, and so I don't think we need to make any unnecessary changes, and so I urge Members to support her amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the further consideration of H.R. 5016, and that I may include tabular materials on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5016, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present to the House the fiscal year 2015 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill.

This subcommittee has jurisdiction over a great number of programs and activities, including the Federal Judiciary; the Treasury, which includes the IRS; the Federal Trade Commission; the Federal Communications Commission; the Small Business Administration; and several other activities.

All the agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction play an important role in the functioning of the Federal Government, and I think it is appropriate that all the Members of the House have a chance to offer germane amendments that impact the funding that is provided in this bill.

The bill that we are considering today provides $21.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is $566 million, or 2.6 percent less than last year, and $2.3 billion, or 9.6 percent less than the request.

The subcommittee's allocation has been reduced, but it is one that is necessary to live within the confines of the budget agreement that was put together under the Ryan-Murray agreement. The allocation is sufficient to fund priority programs while reducing some of the programs that are not essential to the operation of the Federal Government or have a history of wasting taxpayer resources.

One of the main provisions of this bill is funding for law enforcement. The bill provides increased funding over fiscal year 2014 for several law enforcement activities.

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program receives a $6.5 million increase. The Drug-Free Communities program receives a $3 million increase, and the Treasury's terrorism and financial intelligence activities--they are the ones who develop and enforce sanctions--receive an $18 million increase. In addition, we have ample funding for the operations of the Federal judiciary and the D.C. Courts. We also have money for the supervision of offenders and defendants who are living in our communities.

Another priority for the bill is supporting small businesses and assisting in private sector job creation. This bill provides $195 million for the Small Business Administration's business loan programs, and that supports $18.5 billion of lending under a program called 7(a), and it supports $7.5 billion under 504 lending. This bill also provides increases over the current year for the Small Business Development Centers. It provides increases for the Women's Business Centers and for the Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund program. In addition, this bill asks several of the regulatory agencies to report to this committee and to tell us how they are doing as they attempt to eliminate some of the burdensome, duplicative, and just plain unnecessary regulations.

In order to live within our allocation, we had to reduce funding in some areas. We actually eliminate funding for nine different programs, including the Christopher Columbus Foundation and the Election Assistance Commission. Those are activities that we feel are no longer necessary or are certainly not vital to the operation of the Federal Government. We further reduce funding for more than a dozen agencies and programs that, in our opinion, can operate on a little bit less, like the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission.

For the GSA, we reduce their funding for the Federal buildings fund by $240 million. We continue to require them to regularly report to us on their spending and on the state of their building portfolio. The bill provides the GSA with enough funds to operate their current building inventory, and it provides new funding for three land port of entry construction projects. We also continue to push the GSA to reduce their surplus and vacant space. We designate some funding to help them consolidate their projects and dispose of some of the projects, but we make sure that they do that only if there are going to be savings in the long run.

In an effort to increase transparency and accountability, we make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, subject to the annual appropriations process of this Congress. When Dodd-Frank set that agency up, they purposefully left it without any oversight from this Congress. We think that is not the best way to go. We think that that is an agency that ought to report to us what they are doing, how they are doing it, and how much money they are spending, and this bill will correct that flaw.

The bill freezes funding for the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. It includes a requirement that OMB submit the President's budget request on time, which is something they have not been able to do in the last couple of years, or they will face a withholding of approximately 7 months of their budget until the President's request is sent. In addition, the bill contains a prohibition on funding for the White House to prepare signing statements and executive orders which are contradictory to existing law.

I would like to touch on the IRS. This committee still remains outraged at some of the activities that we have seen from the IRS in recent times. First, we learned that they were singling out individuals and groups of individuals for additional scrutiny based on their political philosophies. Then we learned that they had wasted millions of dollars in having lavish conferences around the country and in making silly videos. Then we learned that the new Commissioner paid $63 million in bonuses and awards after the prior Commissioner had said we are not going to pay those. Then we find out that some of the people who were receiving those bonuses and awards were, in fact, delinquent in paying their own taxes. So,

last year, we had some reforms on spending, and we had reforms on the targeting, but work remains to be done.

This bill provides the IRS with $10.95 billion. That is $341 million below the level last year, and it is $1.5 billion below their request. Now, people say that is a pretty drastic cut, but that actually leaves the IRS funded at the same level at which they were prior to 2008. We have to remember that the IRS has betrayed the trust of the American people in a lot of different ways, and it is going to take some time for the IRS to restore that trust, because it seems like, just about every week, we read about a new revelation of some sort of IRS bureaucratic incompetence or, maybe, of a willful disregard for existing law--or sometimes even both.

We want to make sure that they begin to clean up their act, and this bill provides that they can no longer subject people to additional scrutiny. They can't waste money on lavish conferences anymore, and they can't pay bonuses and awards to people unless they at least consider the conduct of that individual and whether or not that individual is current on his taxes. We require a certain amount of reporting from the IRS, and we require them to tell us how much official time is being used on union activities.

We also have language in there of this new, revised regulation that they have put forward regarding the definition of what is an organization under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which was a rule that was promulgated based on the investigation that was taking place about the abuse of singling out individuals. In our opinion, the Treasury should wait until that investigation is conducted before any kind of new rule has been proposed. The rule was withdrawn after there were 150,000 comments, and a lot of those comments came from all sides of the political spectrum. We think there is plenty for the IRS to do in terms of time, in terms of energy, in terms of money before they spend that in trying to write a new rule. We also found out just recently that, while the IRS asks us to keep our records for 7 years, they couldn't keep their records for more than 7 months, so there is a provision in here that says they can't destroy any of their records if it is outside existing law.

Finally, I want to say something about the Affordable Care Act. This committee believes that the IRS should not have a role in implementing the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act. The IRS, as I said, has betrayed the trust of the American people. There is not much trust in the IRS today. People don't trust the IRS with their taxes, and they are certainly not going to trust the IRS with their health care. At a time when the IRS hasn't demonstrated much ability to either self- correct or self-police, the bill says that they can't spend any money to implement the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act and that they also can't transfer any money to fund it from the Department of Health and Human Services.

That is it in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a good bill. It takes the money that we have and makes some tough choices, sets the right priorities, and spends money in a wise and efficient way.

I want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee for the work that they have put in. I want to thank our staffs--both the majority and minority staffs--for the work that they have put in.

I want to say a special word of thanks to the ranking member, Mr. Serrano, the gentleman from New York. His input has made this a better bill. Even though he thinks there should be more money and he doesn't agree with everything that is in the bill, he has been a great partner to work with in the spirit of cooperation and particularly in an effort to make sure that we return to regular order, where the appropriations bills are brought before this House, so I want to thank him for that.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.006

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a valued member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for a colloquy.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding and engaging in this colloquy. I also thank him for his leadership on this particular issue and for making great strides regarding the rooting out of government waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee did include the language in question, and we were happy to do so.

As the gentleman stated, this type of practice surely fits within the same realm of government propaganda which is barred by law. When the conference committee is selected and meets to discuss all spending programs and priorities, I will work to see the gentleman's request is considered appropriately and amongst all conferees.

So again, I thank the gentleman for his efforts. I look forward to working with him on this item and others.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want to thank him for bringing this to our attention and let him know that I am happy to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because the bill strongly supports the Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and actually provides $14 million above the request, and that is to make sure there are robust and forceful sanction programs. This bill also supports the TIGTA. It provides $581,000 above the request to ensure that the inspector general can keep a careful and close eye on the IRS activities.

So I appreciate the gentleman's support for the TFI, but it cannot come at the expense of the IRS watchdog. Everyone knows what has been happening with the IRS, and we need a strong IG to oversee the IRS. They are doing good and much-needed oversight, and the bill already provides Treasury's financial intelligence programs with a significant increase.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman from Florida working with the committee on this amendment. We are glad to accept it.

Recently, the IRS began enforcement of this new regulation requiring U.S. banks to report the amount of interest earned on deposits made by nonresident aliens, and this new regulation is detrimental to Florida's economy and the U.S. economy as a whole because it weakens the competitiveness of the U.S. financial institutions and forces foreign capital to flee our country.

The regulation burdens U.S. financial firms with additional paperwork and has the unintended consequence of causing many of these foreign depositors to take their business and capital elsewhere, so hundreds of billions of dollars will flee the economy.

That will impede small business lending and affect local communities. Both Congress and the administration will benefit from a fuller understanding of how the regulation affects banks, their clientele, and all of the communities, so I urge a ``yes'' vote in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment. I have great sympathy for the situation that the family found itself in, but I have to remind my colleagues that the bill already cuts FinCEN by $3.3 million compared to 2014, and our bill increases taxpayer services by $7.5 million.

So I wish the IRS could do a better job of dealing with taxpayer services. That is one of the areas that they really need to get a handle on because there are too many stories like the one she just told, but FinCEN does good work.

They work with industry to detect and discourage and apprehend money launderers, so I don't think we should cut them any further. As I pointed out, we have increased the funding for taxpayer services, and so for that reason, I have to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one final thing. In terms of taxpayer services, this bill already provides $2.1 billion for taxpayer services. As I point out, that is an increase over last year. We have already cut FinCEN by $3.3 million.

So, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to thank you for bringing this to our attention and am pleased to support the amendment.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I just want you to know that we have no objection to your amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am pleased to support his amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I think tax counseling for the elderly is very important, and I am happy to accept your amendment.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want the gentlewoman to know that this is a very good amendment. I support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want him to know that I rise in strong support of this amendment.

We have talked about the fact that the IRS has betrayed the trust of the American people, and if they are just going to circle the wagons, that is just going to raise more suspicion, so I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, congressional oversight makes agencies both more responsive and more responsible.

The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFPB to fund itself by drawing money from the Federal Reserve to the extent that the Bureau Director deems necessary--necessary--that is all he has to say. Now, the Fed doesn't oversee the Bureau. They don't exercise any authority over it, but they must transfer whatever funds the Bureau requests, up to $600 million. And since 2011, the Bureau has diverted over $1.5 billion-- $1.5 billion--from the Fed, and those are funds that would otherwise be applied for deficit reduction, without any congressional input or approval of its activities.

And listen to this: of that money that the Bureau has received, they are now planning to spend more on renovating and redecorating a building than the building is actually worth. The inspector general of the Federal Reserve, which has oversight of the Bureau, also found that the Bureau needs to improve its recordkeeping and controls around the government travel cards, purchase cards, conferences, information, security, and procurement.

So section 501 neither abolishes the Bureau nor limits the Bureau's funding. Instead, it simply allows Congress and all Americans to understand what they do, how they do it, and how much it costs.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.

I would now like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), my ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, accountability and transparency are good things. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is an objection.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law, and it constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment confers new authority.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this committee is not starving the SEC for funds. The SEC received an 11 percent increase in fiscal year 2012. They received an 8 percent increase over the sequester level in 2014, and this year, the SEC is asking for $350 million more than they received in 2014. That is a 26 percent increase over fiscal year 2014.

Now, for fiscal year 2015, the committee recommends $1.4 billion. That is $50 million above the fiscal year 2014, and it is specifically for critical SEC information technology initiatives.

Listen to this: since 2001, Congress has increased the SEC's funding level by more than 200 percent. Not many Federal agencies can say they have received that kind of increase the way the SEC has. Then you ask yourself: What did the Commission get for that increased funding?

Well, the Commission missed the Madoff Ponzi scheme. They signed a no-bid lease for almost a million square feet of office space they didn't need, they produced inaccurate financial statements, they failed to conduct a serious and thorough review of the agency's bureaucratic and siloed structure in order to become more efficient and more effective, and they wasted over a million dollars on unnecessary equipment.

I might add they have had some of their rules thrown out in court due to the lack of economic analysis.

That is just to name a few of the embarrassing moments that the SEC enforcement and management has endured. This is not about a lack of funding. Throwing more money at the SEC is not the answer.

We believe the Commission needs to get back on track to show real progress before we give them hundreds of millions of dollars of new money. The bill has targeted extra funding in areas of need within the Commission. That is information technology and economic analysis.

Over the past 3 years, this committee has consistently supported the SEC's information technology funding. If we could upgrade the information technology systems they will be better able to leverage their resources, catch the bad actors, and provide the quality review that securities filings demand.

The fact that this agency is fee-funded in no way diminishes the need for congressional oversight over the Commission's funding.

The SEC, in summary, is not starved for resources. We can't buy a better regulator. Those are just nice talking points, but they are not really based on facts.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind everyone, as I pointed out, in a little over 10 years, the funding for the SEC has increased over 200 percent--200 percent. I think there is adequate money to do the job they were given to do. They just need to do it effectively and efficiently, like other areas of government are asked to perform.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am pleased to support his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states, in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

This amendment directly amends existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 152, line 9, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

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