Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, F. James Sensenbrenner, Trey Gowdy, Jerrold Nadler, Jose Serrano, Karen Bass and I would like to take this opportunity to set forth some of the history behind, as well as describe the workings of the Private Calendar. We hope this might be of some value to the Members of this House, especially our newer colleagues.

Of the four House Calendars, the Private Calendar is the one to which all Private Bills are referred. Private Bills deal with specific individuals, corporations, institutions, and so forth, as distinguished from public bills, which deal with classes only.

Of the 108 laws approved by the First Congress, only 5 were Private Laws. But their number quickly grew as the wars of the new Republic produced veterans and veterans' widows seeking pensions and as more citizens came to have private claims and demands against the Federal Government. The 49th Congress, 1885 to 1887, the first Congress for which complete workload and output data is available, passed 1,031 Private Laws, as compared with 434 Public Laws. At the turn of the century the 56th Congress passed 1,498 Private Laws and 443 Public Laws--a better than three to one ratio.

Private bills were referred to the Committee on the Whole House as far back as 1820, and a calendar of private bills was established in 1839. These bills were initially brought before the House by special orders, but the 62nd Congress changed this procedure by its rule XXIV, clause six which provided for the consideration of the Private Calendar in lieu of special orders. This rule was amended in 1932, and then adopted in its present form on March 27, 1935.

A determined effort to reduce the private bill workload of the Congress was made in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Section 131 of that Act banned the introduction or the consideration of four types of private bills; first, those authorizing the payment of money for pensions; second, for personal or property damages for which suit may be brought under the Federal tort claims procedure; third, those authorizing the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream, or fourth, those authorizing the correction of a military or naval record.

This ban afforded some temporary relief but was soon offset by the rising postwar and Cold War flood for private immigration bills. The 82nd Congress passed 1,023 Private Laws, as compared with 594 Public Laws. The 88th Congress passed 360 Private Laws compared with 666 Public Laws.

Under rule XV, clause five, the Private Calendar is called the first and third Tuesday of each month. The consideration of the Private Calendar bills on the first Tuesday is mandatory unless dispensed with by a two-thirds vote. On the third Tuesday, however, recognition for consideration of the Private Calendar is within the discretion of the Speaker and does not take precedence over other privileged business in the House.

On the first Tuesday of each month, after disposition of business on the Speaker's table for reference only, the Speaker directs the call of the Private Calendar. If a bill called is objected to by two or more Members, it is automatically recommitted to the committee reporting it. No reservation of objection is entertained. Bills un-objected to are considered in the House in the Committee of the Whole.

On the third Tuesday of each month, the same procedure is followed with the exception that omnibus bills embodying bills previously rejected have preference and are in order regardless of objection.

Such omnibus bills are read by paragraph, and no amendments are entertained except to strike out or reduce amounts or provide limitations. Matters so stricken out shall not be again included in an omnibus bill during that session. Debate is limited to motions allowable under the rule and does not admit motions to strike out the last word or reservation of objections. The rules prohibit the Speaker from recognizing Members for statements or for requests for unanimous consent for debate. Omnibus bills so passed are thereupon resolved in their component bills, which are engrossed separately and disposed of as if passed separately.

Private Calendar bills unfinished on one Tuesday go over to the next Tuesday on which such bills are in order and are considered before the call of bills subsequently on the calendar. Omnibus bills follow the same procedure and go over to the next Tuesday on which that class of business is again in order.

Mr. Speaker, we would also like to describe to the newer Members the Official Objectors Committee, the system the House has established to deal with Private Bills.

The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader each appoint three Members to serve as Private Calendar Objectors during a Congress. The Objectors are on the Floor ready to object to any Private Bill which they feel is objectionable for any reason. Should any Member have a doubt or question about a particular Private Bill, he or she can get assistance from objectors, their staff, or from the Member who introduced the bill.

The amount of private bills and the desire to have an opportunity to study them carefully before they are called on the Private Calendar has caused the six objectors to agree upon certain ground rules. The rules limit consideration of bills placed on the Private Calendar only shortly before the calendar is called. With this agreement of June 28, 2013, the members of the Private Calendar Objectors Committee have agreed that during the 113th Congress, they will consider only those bills which have been on the Private Calendar for a period of seven (7) legislative days, excluding the day the bill is placed on the calendar and the day the calendar is called. Reports must be available to the Objectors for three (3) calendar days. It is agreed that the majority and minority clerks will not submit to the Objectors any bills which do not meet this requirement.

This policy will be strictly enforced except during the closing days of a session when the House rules are suspended.

This agreement was entered into by: The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

We request all Members to enable us to give the necessary advance considerations to private bills by not asking that we depart from the above agreement unless absolutely necessary.

Mr. Chair, I regret that I was detained at the beginning of the vote series on June 28, 2013 during votes on amendments to H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. Had I been present, my intention was to vote ``no'' on the DeFazio Amendment and ``yes'' on the Broun amendment.

Again, I regret that I was detained.

Amendment No. 10, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Grayson

Madam Chairman, this FARRM Bill reforms many commodity programs. It makes major policy changes that leave no commodity untouched except for one. This bill makes absolutely no change to the sugar program. In fact, the sugar program wasn't even given the scrutiny of an audit hearing.

Under this bill, we are being asked to demand sacrifices from farmers in our districts. Wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton, peanuts, and rice-- these commodities and more are undergoing major changes and contributing to the deficit reduction in this bill. But we're asked to believe that the sugar program and the sugar program alone is so perfect that it must be left untouched, it cannot be reformed or even discussed. I respectfully disagree.

The sugar program needs to be reformed for many reasons:

First, all serious studies show that the sugar program increases food costs. Economists at Iowa State University put this consumer cost at up to $3.5 billion a year for the first 4 years of the 2008 farm bill.

Second, because it harms the competitiveness of U.S. food manufacturing, the sugar program costs jobs. The Iowa State study estimated that as many as 20,000 new jobs a year could be created if sugar policy were fully reformed. The U.S. Department of Commerce found that for every sugar industry job saved by the program, three good manufacturing jobs were lost.

Third, current sugar policy may not have cost taxpayers at the moment, but the Congressional Budget Office projects that it will in the future. The Feedstock Flexibility Program--which was added to the sugar policy in 2008--is forecast to cost $193 million.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Fourth, the sugar program constitutes an almost unbelievable government intrusion into private business decisions. Under the marketing allotment system, the federal government tells every sugar company the exact amount of sugar that it is legal for the company to sell, down to the pound. USDA issues press releases every year with each private company's exact sales quota listed. Can you imagine what my colleagues would call that if we did it in any other industry in America? It is a pure command-and-control regime.

For all these reasons, I believe we need a serious discussion about sugar policy. A case could be made to repeal it completely. But that is not what I am proposing.

This amendment does not repeal the sugar program or sugar import quotas.

Instead, the amendment removes several features that were added to sugar policy in 2008, and makes some additional program reforms. Specifically, it eliminates--new restrictions that prevent Secretary Vilsack from increasing import quotas between October 1 and April 1, and require that he set the import quota at the bare minimum allowed under our international obligations, regardless of market needs; the Feedstock Flexibility Program, which requires the government to buy up surplus sugar and re-sell it to ethanol plants at a loss to taxpayers; a de facto domestic content requirement, which prevents USDA from reducing marketing allotments below 85% of the market, even if that would save the government money; and price support increases that were mandated in 2008. This part of the amendment is scored by CBO as contributing to a net savings of $73 million.

The amendment also makes the sugar program more flexible and transparent: first, by permitting developing countries to lease one another's sugar quotas temporarily, thus allowing small quota-holding countries that no longer produce sugar to derive some benefit from their quotas, and ensuring that all quota sugar will actually be imported; second, by setting a goal that ending stocks of sugar will be approximately 15.5% of total demand, thereby making policies more transparent; and third, by restoring Secretary Vilsack's authority to suspend marketing allotments in emergency conditions, authority taken away in 2008.

In 2008, Congress went too far in shackling sugar policy with new market-shorting provisions. We have seen the results in the four years after enactment of the farm bill.

With USDA unable to increase imports even when supplies were tight, both wholesale and retail sugar prices in the United States have set all-time records.

At the same time, the gap between U.S. and world sugar prices widened far beyond historic levels.

Supplies were so tight in the summer of 2010 that the United States imported 200,000 tons of ``high-tier'' or ``over-quota'' sugar. This means the importer willingly paid a tariff that

is deliberately set so high as to be prohibitive in normal conditions. There was simply no other sugar available from U.S., Mexican or quota sources.

Once again, our amendment does not change the basic tenets of sugar policy. A good case can be made to do that, but I fully understand that many of my colleagues would not support a repeal. Instead, this amendment rolls back counterproductive policies that have distorted markets and increased consumer costs since they were enacted in 2008.

The amendment's scope is modest, but it is genuine reform. I once again ask my colleagues: Do you really believe that we should cut programs for farmers in your district, but leave sugar policy absolutely untouched? If you do not believe that, please vote for the sugar reform amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 99 at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes of my 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott) so he may manage that time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself.

Mr. Chairman, like Ranking Member Peterson, I have been closely involved in the debate to modernize our dairy system. In fact, at his request, I joined him and other Members to seek a solution to fix our dairy safety net after our current programs failed our producers. We agree that dairy farmers deserve access to a Dairy Margin Protection Program to ensure their production. However, I cannot support a Dairy Supply Management Program, and that's why I've joined with Congressman Scott, Congressman Collins, Congressman Moran, Congressman Duffy, Congressman Polis, Congressman Coffman, Congressman Meeks, Congressman Issa, Congresswoman DeGette, Congressman Sessions, and Congresswoman Lee to offer this amendment to take out the dairy provision and substitute for it what we have in all of our other commodity programs, and that is an insurance program that will save the taxpayers money, will save the consumers a lot of money, and not have a policy where we are actually having the government go to dairy farmers and say, If you want to get your check, you have to reduce the size of your herd.

I urge Members to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I offer amendment #99 to remove the Dairy Market Stabilization Program with a bipartisan group of members--D. Scott/C. Collins/Moran/ Duffy/Polis/Coffman/Meeks/Issa/DeGette/Sessions/B. Lee.

Like Ranking Member Peterson, I have been closely involved in the debate to modernize our dairy system. In fact at his request, I joined him and other members to seek a solution to fix our dairy safety net after our current programs failed our producers. We agree that dairy farmers deserve access to a Dairy Margin Protection Program, to insure their production. However, I cannot support a Dairy Supply Management Program.

This highly controversial program would attempt to manage the U.S. milk supply, and in the process penalize both consumers of dairy

products, as well as dairy farmers who want to expand their operations. Production controls or quotas, programs like the stabilization program are designed to limit milk supply in order to raise milk prices. Programs that directly interfere with free and open markets to raise prices will hurt exports, encourage imports, increase dairy prices for consumers and limit industry growth.

Our amendment is better for farmers. Our amendment gives farmers the tools to manage their risk without requiring them to participate in yet another government program. The new Title I programs and our existing insurance programs do not require producers to participate in government supply management, why is dairy different? A lot has been said that supply management has to be included to save the taxpayers' money. Frankly, the Congressional Budget Office has proven this inaccurate. Our bipartisan amendment without supply management saves the taxpayers $15 million dollars. Farmers, consumers and taxpayers are better without Supply Management and I ask my colleagues to vote for our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble), America's dairy land, with more dairy farms than any other in the country.

Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Brown said was up to 32 cents a gallon.

At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

At this time, it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the Agriculture Committee, to close our debate.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 266, I call up the bill (H.R. 1797) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1797, currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) be permitted to control the balance of my time.

It is the prerogative of the committee to choose the appropriate people to manage time. I notice that the ranking member is not managing on the Democratic side. We choose to ask someone who is not a member of the committee, and that's appropriate under the rules of the House.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee and the other pro-life women who are speaking out in this debate today.

Since the Supreme Court's controversial decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, medical knowledge regarding the development of unborn babies and their capacities at various stages of growth has advanced dramatically. Even The New York Times has reported on the latest research on unborn pain, focusing in particular on the research of Dr. Sunny Anand, an Oxford-trained neonatal pediatrician who has held appointments at Harvard Medical School and other distinguished institutions. As Dr. Anand has testified:

If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would

assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus, and I

believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.

Congress has the power to acknowledge these developments by prohibiting abortions after the point at which scientific evidence shows the unborn can feel pain with limited exceptions. H.R. 1797 does just that. It also includes provisions to protect the life of the mother and an additional exception for cases of rape and incest.

The terrifying facts uncovered during the course of the trial of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell and successive reports of similar atrocities committed across the country remind us how an atmosphere of insensitivity can lead to horrific brutality.

The grand jury report in the Gosnell case itself contains references to a neonatal expert who reported that the cutting of the spinal cords of babies intended to be late-term aborted would cause them ``a tremendous amount of pain.''

The polling company recently found that 64 percent of Americans would support a law such as the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act-- only 30 percent would oppose it--and supporters include 47 percent of those who identified themselves as pro-choice in the poll as well as 63 percent of women.

In the 2007 case of Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court made clear that: ``The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman,'' and that Congress may show such respect for the unborn through specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.

As The New York Times story concluded, throughout history, ``a presumed insensitivity to pain has been used to exclude some of humanity's privileges and protections. Over time, the charmed circle of those considered alive to pain, and therefore fully human, has widened to include members of other religions and races, the poor, the criminal, the mentally ill, and--thanks to the work of Sunny Anand and others--the very young.''

The Gosnell trial reminds us that when newborn babies are cut with scissors, they whimper and cry and flinch from pain. And unborn babies, when harmed, also whimper and cry and flinch from pain. Delivered or not, babies are babies, and they can feel pain at least by 20 weeks.

It is time to welcome our children who can feel pain into the human family. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, June 14, 2013.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 1797, the

``District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection

Act,'' which your Committee reported on June 12, 2013.

H.R. 1797 contains provisions within the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform's Rule X jurisdiction. As a

result of your having consulted with the Committee and in

order to expedite this bill for floor consideration, the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will forego

action on the bill. This is being done on the basis of our

mutual understanding that doing so will in no way diminish or

alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform with respect to the appointment of

conferees, or to any future jurisdictional claim over the

subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming

this understanding, and would request that you include a copy

of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and

in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of

this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 11.

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

On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which empowered the President to ``use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks,'' in order to prevent ``any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.''

Section 1021 of the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act reaffirms the President's authority to detain so-called ``enemy combatants'' by ``affirming that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war.''

A number of Members from both sides of the aisle have expressed extreme discomfort and even outrage at the notion that a United States citizen apprehended on United States soil can potentially be held indefinitely under this act. To that end, I supported an amendment to the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that reaffirmed the availability of the writ of habeas corpus for any person detained in the United States pursuant to the 2001 AUMF or the fiscal year 2012

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to respond to the gentleman.

First of all, the contention that there is no distinction drawn between United States citizens and noncitizens in the context of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not operate to protect all citizens regardless of their connections to American society. So the 9/ 11 hijackers are not in the same status as individuals in this country who are citizens of the United States. Rather, the Fourth Amendment operates only to protect the class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. The farther that an individual is removed from such community, then the weaker the claim he has to constitutional protection.

I agree with the gentleman that rewriting the Authorization for Use of Military Force and extending this protection, particularly as it pertains to the United States citizens, greater should be done; but what the gentleman wants to do does not have the kind of strong bipartisan support that's necessary to pass the House. This amendment does, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to say to the gentleman from New York, you cause the Members of the Congress to have a Hobson's choice of having to choose to give the protection to every single person in the United States--including the 9/11 hijackers and others--or you have the opportunity to choose to give it clearly to United States citizens who clearly are entitled to have it.

You do not have the ability, with your amendment, to draw that line between those who are lawfully present in the United States and would be entitled, and those who do not. As a result of that, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment that the gentleman describes and support this amendment, which will advance the cause of giving United States citizens greater protections, reversing the burden of proof, putting that burden on the government--which is, after all, the American way. It is, after all, what the Bill of Rights provides.

You have to show that in order to convict a United States citizen in our courts--or certainly in an article III court--and it should be in these military tribunals--the burden of proof on government to do that and do it by a higher standard than they have to under the law that exists right now in the AUMF, which is only reasonable proof, not clear and convincing as this amendment requires.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as the best way to move forward in protecting the rights of American citizens.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I also want to tell him how much I appreciate him raising this very important issue.

There is no doubt that individuals brought to the United States as young children by their illegal immigrant parents are the most sympathetic group of people not lawfully present in the United States today, and that is particularly true of those who desire to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. We should embrace these individuals whose goal it is to integrate into American society and live and work by the rules of our Nation.

This is an issue that we plan to look at in the Judiciary Committee, and so I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) also for raising the issue in the context of our overall efforts to deal with immigration reform, and if the gentleman from California would withdraw his amendment, I would commit to him to work with him in addressing the situation and immigration status of these individuals. This should and can be done in the broad spectrum of the entire immigration debate, which as you know we are fully engaged in in the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, The USS Scorpion went down May 22, 1968, killing 99 men and was consequently buried 11,220 feet underwater in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. There are more questions than answers for those familiar with the Scorpion but today let the record show, we will never forget.

The crisis exploded without warning across the sprawling U.S. Navy community in Norfolk, Virginia. A nuclear submarine and its crew had vanished in the Atlantic. The Scorpion and its 99-man crew had left Norfolk on February 15 for a three-month Mediterranean deployment. The crew participated in several naval exercises with the U.S. Sixth Fleet and NATO, and conducted ongoing reconnaissance of Soviet naval units, with stops in Italy and Sicily before reentering the Atlantic for the homeward voyage on May 17. Scorpion's skipper, Commander Francis A. Slattery, had radioed Atlantic Submarine Force headquarters early on May 22 that the sub would arrive in Norfolk at 1 p.m. the following Monday, Memorial Day. The 1 p.m. arrival time came and went with no sign of Scorpion.

Later a Navy admiral involved in the Scorpion incident would describe it as ``one of the greatest unsolved sea mysteries of our era.'' The 251-foot-long submarine and its crew had inexplicably disappeared somewhere in the trackless Atlantic Ocean.

On June 5, 1968 the Scorpion was declared ``presumed lost.'' Yesterday, we marked the 45th Anniversary of the sub being presumed lost; and we honor the sacrifice of the USS Scorpion and its entire crew. The reason for this tragedy remains a mystery, but the honor and valor of the 99 men lost that day is no mystery. Our Nation owes them an unfaltering debt of gratitude for their service and commitment to freedom.

Not only are we forever indebted to the crew of the USS Scorpion, but we are forever indebted to their families who have lived these 45 years with uncertainty and without closure.

I applaud the mission, the memory, and the memorial of the USS Scorpion and its crew of 99.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against section 563 of this bill. The section violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits legislative language in a general appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, ever since President Obama was first elected and chose to push through a federal takeover of America's health care system, House conservatives have led the charge to repeal the law commonly known as Obamacare and replace it with true reforms that will increase access and lower costs for consumers. With a string of broken promises from its authors and prominent backers, this law has already forced people off of the insurance they previously had, has increased premiums by thousands of dollars, and has reduced work hours for millions.

The fundamental question facing uninsured Americans was never, ``how do we give the federal government more power over our lives?'' Yet government control over health care was what the Democrat majority provided. House Republicans offered alternatives that gave our constituents the peace of mind to know that a safety net would be in place for the least fortunate amongst us, and provided commonsense reforms to allow those uninsured or underinsured to get the insurance they needed at an affordable price. Unfortunately, what we got was a law that, as former Speaker Pelosi famously stated, ``we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'' Well, we've read the bill, and the tens of thousands of pages of regulations to enforce it, and I can tell you the backlash and opposition to the law continues to mount.

One small example of the absurdity of this law is provided by a constituent of mine who lives in Virginia. This small business owner has chosen to insure his employees for the last forty years, helping his employees afford the insurance they need to keep their families healthy. Because of Obamacare, this company is required to spend more than $30,000 to reenroll their current employees. Let me repeat that. Even though these employees already have health insurance, the company is required to pay a fee for each and every one of them, to enroll the employee back into the exact same plan. That $30,000, which could have been used to hire new workers or grow the local economy, will now be sent to bureaucrats in Washington. Instead of health insurance for Main Street, this appears to be health insurance for K Street.

Today the House has a chance to stop growing the size of government, and to give power and freedom back to the American people. Instead of propping up health care exchanges, bureaucratic IPAB rationing panels, and mandates which cost Americans thousands of dollars each year, let's start over and focus on the real needs of access to care and reduced costs of insurance. We can all admit that our health insurance system can use strengthening, but this is not the way to do it. If you are serious about reforming the health insurance system in this country, then join me in voting to repeal Obamacare and send a message to the American people that we have heard their anger and outrage over this law and we will do what it takes to see it repealed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 180) to encourage, enhance, and integrate Blue Alert plans throughout the United States in order to disseminate information when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 180, currently under consideration.

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

Tomorrow, on the west front of the Capitol, we will honor those law enforcement officers killed last year in the line of duty. In 2012, 127 officers gave their lives while protecting America's public safety, including three officers in my home State of Virginia.

Although officer fatalities nationwide decreased by 23 percent from the previous year, 66 of those officers were killed in violent or deliberate attacks. Ambush attacks on police officers were the leading cause in fatal shootings, followed by traffic stops or pursuits, drug- related crimes, and robberies.

H.R. 180, the National Blue Alert Act of 2013, encourages an enhanced nationwide system for distribution of time-sensitive information to help identify a violent suspect when a law enforcement officer is injured or killed in the line of duty.

A Blue Alert broadcasts information and speeds apprehension. Blue Alerts use the same principle as Amber Alerts for missing children and Silver Alerts for missing seniors. The Blue Alert system is a cooperative effort among local, State, and Federal authorities, law enforcement agencies, and the general public.

A Blue Alert provides a description of an offender who is still at large and may include a description of the offender's vehicle and license plate information. Like Amber Alerts, Blue Alerts will help hinder the offender's ability to escape and will facilitate their capture.

This bill directs the Department of Justice to designate an existing officer as the Blue Alert national coordinator who will encourage those States that have not already done so to develop Blue Alert plans and establish voluntary guidelines. As of today, 18 States have Blue Alert networks in place. However, there are many examples where an integrated, nationwide Blue Alert system would save lives and help bring fugitive suspects to justice.

Following the tragic Boston Marathon bombing last month, one of the suspects shot and killed Patrol Officer Sean Collier of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Police Department. One of the subjects approached Officer Collier as he sat in his patrol car and opened fire on him without warning, striking him several times. The subjects then attempted to steal his service weapon but were thwarted by his secured holster.

The suspects then carjacked a vehicle and led police on a pursuit while throwing explosive devices at pursuing units. The pursuit ended in Watertown, Massachusetts, where one suspect was killed and a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority police officer was shot and seriously wounded in a gun battle. The second suspect was captured in Watertown the following evening after another tense standoff.

The immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing demonstrates how criminals are becoming even more violent, and their contempt for law enforcement and the rule of law is more evident than ever. This year is already shaping up to be a devastating year for law enforcement fatalities. As compared with this time last year, line-of-duty deaths this year are up 21 percent. Law enforcement deaths by gunfire are up 7 percent compared with May 2012.

This bill encourages expansion of an integrated Blue Alert communications network throughout the United States, which would ensure that when tragedy strikes, the public is on notice and suspects can be more quickly apprehended and brought to justice. A nationwide

Blue Alert network will be particularly effective when a suspect flees across State lines.

I thank Mr. Grimm of New York and Mr. Reichert of Washington for their work on this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. An identical Senate measure is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Supporters of this legislation include the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations.

This bill reaffirms our commitment to ensure the safety of our law enforcement men and women and the communities they serve to protect every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm) and thank him for his authorship and sponsorship of this legislation.

I do not have any further speakers at this time.

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

I thank my friend and colleague from Virginia, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, for his leadership on this bipartisan effort, as well as Ranking Member Conyers, Mr. Grimm, and Chairman Sensenbrenner of the subcommittee as well for their efforts.

I can't think of a more appropriate time to honor police, during National Police Week, or in a more appropriate way than by passage of this legislation, which will not only allow law enforcement to more effectively communicate in these situations where police officers are in jeopardy or have been harmed, but also in circumstances that will allow everyone in this country to become involved.

With the availability of smartphones and other devices and social media like Twitter and Facebook and YouTube

and other means that people now have of communicating that they didn't have just a few years ago, the word can get out to everyone to be on the lookout for people who are committing crimes. This will help us to apprehend criminals and prevent crimes, and we very much urge our colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, America's workers and families are in a jobs depression. Since 2009, 9.5 million people have dropped out of the workforce. America's workforce participation rate is the lowest since Jimmy Carter was President. Millions looking for full-time work can find only part-time jobs.

Overreaching Federal regulation is a big reason for this jobs disaster. The Obama administration's onslaught of new major regulation is unprecedented. Every day, Federal agencies erect more roadblocks to economic growth and a jobs recovery.

The House Judiciary Committee is working hard to provide relief. It passed the REINS Act last month and is at work on other groundbreaking legislation to reduce unneeded regulation. This legislation is critical to the growth and recovery America needs, and the Judiciary Committee will do all it can to achieve it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation to give the FAA and DOT flexibility to use unobligated funds to ensure the safety of our nation's air transportation system. Specifically I rise to affirm the intent of this legislation that grants the Secretary of Transportation the ability to use unobligated balances of the Airport Improvement Program account to prevent the closure of 149 contract air traffic control towers and halt the furloughs of air traffic controllers.

Our nation's air transportation system is a comprehensive network of intertwined departments, one of which is the air traffic control towers who guide our pilots safely between airports. I want to be very clear, maintaining service at all contract air traffic control towers is intrinsic to the authority given in this legislation to ensure a safe and efficient air transportation system.

Many Members of Congress have expressed grave concerns over the closure of contract towers and furloughs of air traffic controllers, both of which contribute to the overall safety of our nation's air transportation system. I should also clearly state that the inaction of the Department of Transportation to request sequester reprogramming authority and maintain some level of service at all contract towers has led to this legislation. The safety and efficiency of our skies have been put at risk and it has become incumbent upon the Congress to direct this authority to the Secretary of Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) as a cosponsor of H.R. 1461.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Dairy Freedom Act with my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, David Scott.

This legislation will ensure that the American public will not run into another ``DAIRY CLIFF.'' Last Congress, we did not get to vote on a Farm Bill because, among other things, there was a major problem with the dairy policy section.

Every member that represents a Congressional District with dairy farmers is acutely aware of how our current programs failed dairy farmers and the hardship these families experienced. There is no single farm district member who disagrees on the need for fundamental reform of our dairy program. We all agree on the need to reform and improve our current dairy policies--and our bill would do just that. However, our bill would strike the proposed ``dairy market stabilization program.'' This highly controversial piece would attempt to manage the U.S. milk supply, and in the process penalize both consumers of dairy products, and dairy farmers who expand their operations. This program was proposed to be included in the extension of the 2008 Farm Bill--but it was resoundingly rejected by the House and Senate leadership. Do we really want to run into this wall again? I don't think so if we want to get a Farm Bill done this year.

I would ask Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson to include the Dairy Freedom Act, what we consider to be the compromise, in the Chairman's Mark of the Farm Bill. Our bill is largely based on the Dairy Security Act offered last Congress by Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) and is anticipated to be included again in the underlying Farm Bill. The only fundamental difference is that it would exclude the supply management program, and require more fiscally responsible risk management insurance premium levels for large farmers.

Supply management runs contrary to the goals of limited government and economic growth. A supply control program that will directly intervene in markets and increase milk prices will ultimately hurt producers as well as dairy food manufacturers by stifling industry growth. A national dairy policy that allows the market to determine prices paid--with the addition of a new risk management tool such as Margin Protection Insurance--will help dairy producers withstand unforeseen market conditions. This is no different than how other commodities are treated in the Farm Bill.

Our bill also represents a true compromise on dairy policy. We agree that our dairy programs need to be reformed and we have accepted over 80% of the proposals that have been made by Ranking Member Collin Peterson. We agree a strong safety net is needed for dairy farmers. What we reject is the idea that government also needs to intervene in dairy markets by controlling milk production, and ultimately milk prices.

Many have labeled the disagreement about supply management as a fight between dairy producers and dairy processors. The truth, however, is that because supply management programs are designed to have government artificially manipulate prices, they are opposed by a wide variety of groups. Consumer advocates point out that increased dairy prices mean families will be forced to stretch their food budgets further, and perhaps purchase less nutritious products than dairy. Food manufacturers, retailers and restaurants know that increased dairy prices will hurt their businesses as well. And, finally, all of our major,

non-cooperative owned dairy exporters agree that supply management will have a negative impact on their ability to be reliable suppliers in the world market.

Dairy regulations are complex, outdated and inefficient. Proposed reforms in the Farm Bill should not reduce exports, cut jobs, and add more regulations. The Dairy Title should allow the dairy industry a chance to compete and grow without government regulating the amount of milk a farmer can produce. Our citizens and the world population deserve an abundant, affordable and sustainable food supply.

Mr. David Scott and I have developed a viable, bipartisan alternative. Join us to support a revenue insurance program that will help dairy producers without including a government controlled supply management program.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1067) to make revisions in title 36, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current and make technical corrections and improvements.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1067 currently under consideration.

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

I rise today to bring before the House H.R. 1067, a bill Ranking Member Conyers and I introduced to make revisions in title 36, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current and make technical corrections and improvements.

All changes made by this bill are purely technical in nature. This bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives as part of its ongoing responsibility to prepare and submit periodically to the Committee on the Judiciary proposed bills to maintain titles of the United States Code that have been enacted into positive law.

H.R. 1067 is an important bill because it ensures that the U.S. Code is up-to-date and usable. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her remarks, and she is correct that this is bipartisan legislation that makes technical but important changes to title 36 of the United States Code.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1068) to enact title 54, United States Code, ``National Park Service and Related Programs'', as positive law, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1068 currently under consideration, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and rise to bring before the House H.R. 1068, a bill to enact title 54, United

States Code, ``National Park Service and Related Programs'', as positive law.

Until now, laws relating to the organization and management of the National Park System have been clarified as part of title 16--not in one distinct place but, rather, dispersed throughout the title. Over time, these code clarifications have become very cumbersome to use.

Ranking Member Conyers and I introduced this bill to organize all of the provisions relating to the National Park System and restate them as a new positive law title of the United States Code.

The new positive law provisions replace the existing provisions which are repealed by the bill. All changes made by this bill are purely technical in nature. This bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives as part of its ongoing responsibility to prepare and submit periodically to the Committee on the Judiciary, one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States.

The bill was prepared in accordance with the statutory standard for codification legislation, which is that the restatement shall conform to the understood policy, intent, and purpose of Congress in the original enactments, with such amendments and corrections as will remove ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfections.

H.R. 1068 will ensure that the U.S. Code is accurate, up-to-date, and usable. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Bass, for her support in helping us move this legislation through the House today. It is a technical correction, but an important improvement to our United States Code; and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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