Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 595 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012.

The rule makes 10 of the 11 amendments submitted to the committee in order. Of these, eight are Democrat-sponsored amendments and two are Republican-sponsored amendments.

As noted by the subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Eshoo, during the Rules Committee meeting on this last night, H.R. 3309 has come to the floor under regular order. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held an oversight hearing and subsequently a legislative hearing on Federal Communications Commission process reform.

The subcommittee then circulated a discussion draft before holding an open markup and favorably reporting the bill to the full committee on November 16, 2011. On March 6, 2012, the full committee ordered the bill favorably reported to the House.

In 2010, the communications and technology industry invested $66 billion to deploy broadband infrastructure, $3 billion more than in 2009. New products and services are innovated by this sector on an almost daily basis. With the innovation come high-quality jobs and marked improvements for every American's quality of life.

As a result, all efforts should be made to avoid stalling this important economic engine. The FCC should strive to be the most open and transparent agency in the Federal Government, and any intervention into the marketplace should be the result of rigorous analysis demonstrating the need for government regulation.

The Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act would change the process the FCC must follow in issuing regulations and limit the

agency's ability to set conditions on transactions relating to corporate mergers and acquisitions.

The legislation would require the FCC to be more transparent and methodical in determining whether to intervene in the communications marketplace in dealing with customers and regulated parties, and in reviewing transactions.

Customers, small businesses, and outside-the-beltway stakeholders, in particular, do not have the regulatory lawyers needed for rush review of proceedings. The only way to get their input is to give them time to provide feedback on well-delineated proposals.

Before it starts intervening, the FCC should make sure it has a full understanding of the state of competition and current technologies. By requiring the FCC to be more transparent, to find a market failure before proposing regulations, and to conduct cost-benefit analyses before adopting rules, H.R. 3309 helps promote jobs, investment, and innovation in one of the few sectors still firing on all cylinders in this economy.

In particular, the bill prohibits the FCC from coercing parties to accept concessions, such as network neutrality obligations, as a condition of approving their mergers. Such conditions are typically unrelated to the specifics of the transaction and involve requirements the FCC otherwise lacks the policy justification or legal authority to impose. They also chill transactions that might otherwise advance the economy, and impose unnecessary costs on businesses.

The bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace through a notice of inquiry before proposing new rules that would increase costs for customers and businesses; to establish the specific text of proposed rules before their consideration so the public and industry know what is being considered and have adequate information to provide input, much as House leadership has adopted in the layover requirement for the bills that we now hear on the floor; to identify a market failure or customer harm and conduct a cost-effective analysis before adopting economically significant rules that cost more than $100 million; to set the shot clock and schedules for issuing decisions and to report to Congress on how well it is abiding by them so the public and industry know when issues will be resolved; and to create performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a program that costs more than $100 million.

These proposed process reforms are not radical, nor are they an attempt to cripple the FCC, as some opponents of the legislation have claimed. Instead, this legislation seeks to pull back the curtain on bureaucratic regulation of a sector of our economy that has provided high-tech innovation and investment, and the high-quality jobs that come with it, despite the economic downturn.

So, once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any more speakers because I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time, and will get back to the issue at hand.

This is not necessarily a highway bill, but it does talk about a highway, one which is much faster than the ones we drive on. It is hard to imagine a world without a high-speed wireless Internet service. It is hard to imagine staffers walking down the hallways without some sort of wireless devices that they're communicating with others on, and usually their hands are glued to them.

Communications and technology innovations over the past several years have made us a more connected world. In some instances, the new global connectedness has brought us even closer together, allowing us to share in similarities and differences between our peers in distant cultures. It has given us a chance to marvel at the world's best athletes on the grandest stages, and in some cases it has exposed the atrocities of war, intolerance, and disregard for human life. We want our innovations to continue and our inventors to keep inventing. In the communications and technology fields they have, and they continue to amaze us with new breakthroughs every day.

This bill simply pulls back the curtain on the FCC, the agency charged with regulating the communications sector. It asks them to institute commonsense reforms to better keep the public informed on their actions. It requires the Commission to rigorously

examine the marketplace before intervening; to give increased time for public input and comment; and to increase transparency while approving new rules and amendments. These process reforms are simply good government, and they should be embraced in a nonpartisan fashion.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 595 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting

of the text of the bill (H.R. 14) to reauthorize Federal-aid

highway and highway safety construction programs, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this

resolution.

(The information contained herein was provided by the

Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

110th and 111th Congresses.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican

Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United

States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).

Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question

vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not

possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Miles Saffran for exemplary volunteer service in his community. Miles, age 15, of Winter Park, has been named one of the top honorees in Florida by The 2012 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state and the District of Columbia.

Miles is a sophomore at Trinity Preparatory School and has helped raise more than $60,000 to fund three medical trips to Mexico where he has served as the surgical youth coordinator for cleft lip and palate repair for Florida Hospital's mission trips. While in Mexico, Miles was responsible for assisting surgeons, organizing medicine, cleaning masks, and comforting patients and their families.

The Prudential Spirit of Community Award was created in 1995 by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals to encourage youth volunteers in their contributions to society, to emphasize the value of volunteerism, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past 17 years, the program has become the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, and has involved more than 100,000 young volunteers at the local, state and national level.

It is my pleasure to commend Miles for his energy and initiative in seeking to make his community and world a better place to live. His commitment and accomplishment is extraordinary in today's world and deserves recognition. His actions remind us that young Americans can play an important role in our communities.

On behalf of the citizens of Central Florida, I am pleased to recognize Miles Saffran's selflessness and enthusiasm for serving others and for making a difference. The kind of altruism evident in Miles's efforts represents our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. May his efforts inspire others to follow in his footsteps.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Elizabeth Tran for exemplary volunteer service. Elizabeth, age 17, of Orlando, has been named one of the top honorees in Florida by the 2012 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each State and the District of Columbia.

Elizabeth is a junior at Cypress Creek High School and has raised more than $20,000 to support the Children's Miracle Network in the first two years of the ``Miss Miracle'' charity pageant, an annual event that she created. The ``Miss Miracle'' pageant is conducted in cooperation with Teens Go Green, an organization co-founded by Elizabeth and dedicated to raising public awareness for protecting the environment. All ``Miss Miracle'' contestants raise money to support the organization, and those contestants who raise the most are crowned ``Miss Miracle.''

The Prudential Spirit of Community Award was created in 1995 by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals to encourage youth volunteers in their contributions to society, to emphasize the value of volunteerism, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past 17 years, the program has become the Nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, and has involved more than 100,000 young volunteers at the local, State, and national level.

It is my pleasure to commend Elizabeth for her energy and initiative in seeking to make her community and world a better place to live by supporting organizations such as the Children's Miracle Network. Her commitment and accomplishment is extraordinary in today's world and deserves recognition. Her actions remind us that young Americans can play an important role in our communities.

On behalf of the citizens of central Florida, I am pleased to recognize Elizabeth Tran's selflessness and enthusiasm for serving others and for making a difference. The kind of altruism evident in Elizabeth's efforts represents our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. May her efforts inspire others to follow in her footsteps.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 547 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the efforts made to address our aging national infrastructure and chronic unemployment.

House Resolution 547 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3408, the Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security, PIONEERS, Act; a structured rule for H.R. 3813, the Securing Annuities for Federal Employees, SAFE, Act; and general debate for H.R. 7, the American Energy and Infrastructure Act.

This rule makes 20 amendments in order for the PIONEERS Act. Of these, 13 are Democrat amendments; three are Republican; and then there are three bipartisan amendments. This rule also makes three amendments in order for the SAFE Act. However, over 80 percent of the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee are dealing with H.R. 7, so the bulk of the amendment debate will take place later this week. Finally, this rule sets the stage for robust debate on H.R. 7, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, the long-term surface transportation reauthorization.

In order to gather innovative ideas and input into the reauthorization proposal, in addition to the regular subcommittee and full committee hearings held here in Washington, Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Mica and the committee conducted several bipartisan and, in some cases, even bicameral hearings at public forums around the country. In total, 14 field hearings were held in locations like Los Angeles and Chicago to Millington, Tennessee, and Maitland, Florida.

The previous transportation authorization, SAFETEA LU, was enacted in 2005, and it expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, surface transportation programs and activities have operated under a series of short-term extensions. The most recent of these extensions expires on March 31, 2012. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee put together a long-term reauthorization of highway, transit and highway safety programs that will provide much-needed certainty and stability to those charged with rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure and all who depend on it for their safe travel.

H.R. 7 authorizes approximately $260 billion over 5 years for highway, transit, rail, safety, and other programs, which is consistent with current funding levels. It provides 5 years of stability for States to undertake major infrastructure projects and to provide lasting employment. It also allows States to spend their highway money on actual highway projects. By removing Federal requirements that currently force States to spend highway money on nonhighway activities, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act ensures that our Nation's highways and bridges are repaired and properly maintained and that Federal dollars are spent on the most crucial infrastructure needs.

As opposed to past transportation efforts, this bill stops the annual raid on the general fund to bail out the highway trust fund, and is paid for by CBO-scored savings and revenues.

Significant savings are generated by the SAFE Act, which increases Federal employee pension contributions to 2.3 percent. It also increases pension contributions by Members of Congress to 2.8 percent. Revenues are also generated by the PIONEERS Act, which not only removes Federal barriers that block the production of our own U.S. energy resources, but also creates over 1 million new energy jobs.

Finally, unlike past transportation bills, including those overseen by both Republicans and Democrats, H.R. 7 contains no earmarks. To put that in perspective, the previous transportation law contained over 6,300 earmarks. The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act also significantly reforms transportation policy in this country.

As families across the Nation tighten their own belts during these difficult economic times, they are reexamining their budgets to ensure no penny is wasted on unnecessary or duplicative expenses. Because your pennies are placed into the highway trust fund every time you fill up your car due to the Federal gas tax, it is in that same and necessary spirit that the American Clean Energy and Security Act reexamines the dozens of programs paid for by the highway trust fund to root out any duplication, waste, or inefficiency.

Currently, there are over 100 Federal surface transportation programs. Many were added over the last 50 years since the Interstate Highway System was created in 1956 in order to expand the scope of the original programmatic goals of our transportation system. The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act reforms surface transportation programs by consolidating or eliminating approximately 70 programs that are duplicative or do not serve a Federal purpose.

By eliminating or consolidating these cookie-cutter programs that the Federal Government is certainly known for, stamping out a program that supposedly fits Florida and Montana and Maine and every other State equally and including the cities and counties within those communities, which is almost impossible to have one plan fits all, this eliminates many of those programs. It gives them the flexibility to create programs on their own, similar to what the President just did by exempting many States from No Child Left Behind. Why? Because the States did a better job than the cookie-cutter approach done by that particular program.

By eliminating or consolidating these cookie-cutter programs, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act helps to ensure that taxpayer dollars go to high-priority projects that have a direct connection to our economy. By eliminating requirements for States to spend highway funds on nonhighway activities, H.R. 7 permits States to fund those activities which they choose, but it allows States to also fund their most crucial infrastructure needs first. The bill also strengthens safety programs and gives States more flexibility to develop innovative safety initiatives that save lives.

In short, the bill seeks to return the focus of our highway funds to interstate commerce and safe travel, and it allows States to choose their own courses of action.

For those projects that are crucial for the safe and efficient movement of goods and people around our Nation, this legislation streamlines their delivery process or construction time by cutting the average highway construction completion time in half, from 14 years to 7 years.

The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act cuts the bureaucratic red tape by allowing Federal agencies to review transportation projects concurrently, delegates project approval authority to the States, and establishes hard deadlines for Federal agencies to make decisions on permits and project approvals. The bureaucracy inherent in the approval and delivery process has proven to be the real hurdle, delaying long overdue improvements to highways, bridges, and other projects. H.R. 7 also expands the list of activities that qualify for categorical exclusions, an approval process that is faster and simpler than the standard process.

While cutting the project review process time in half, we are also ensuring environmental protections, such as those under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, remain in place while making infrastructure improvements in a much more effective manner.

The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act also reforms financing programs to increase private sector involvement in building infrastructure. For example, it funds the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, the TIFIA program, for low-cost interest loans at $1 billion per year. It also incentivizes States to build upon the existing State Infrastructure Bank program by allowing States to seek out revenue-generating infrastructure projects that lack the capital to move from planning to pavement.

As these pressing State and local infrastructure needs are met, taxpayer exposure for future projects will lessen

as revenues generated by the State Infrastructure Bank-funded projects will be recycled back into the infrastructure bank for future projects. The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act provides certainty to communities that infrastructure will be rebuilt, and it provides stability to those whose jobs depend on our commitment to rebuilding it.

Given the current economy, it seeks to safeguard valuable taxpayer dollars by cutting Washington red tape and by leveraging private sector dollars. It frees up States and local governments to make decisions that are in the best interests of their communities that they serve. It does all of this without a single earmark or a single tax increase, and it's all paid for.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the efforts made by the relevant committees to address the Nation's infrastructure and chronic unemployment. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In hearing what I heard in the Rules Committee last night and here on the floor this morning, it reminds me that people who have been here a long time love cookie cutters, and so many of the people that are opposed to this bill are opposed to it because they like cookie cutters. They like to say that this program works here and there and everywhere, as opposed to giving flexibility to the States.

Cookie cutters are used in education funding. They are used in Medicaid funding. They are used in this particular funding for transportation. And they're used to limit the flexibility of States who really know what their program is. It's far better for the District Five MPO in central Florida to put together a program, build it from the ground up, determine what their needs are and what modes of transportation they would like to have, build that program, send it up to the State, the legislature passes it, and it becomes law.

But no. Right now, there are so many different little programs that you have to put money into that you cannot devise your own program. You have to live within the constraints of a Federal Government that believes in cookie cutters. And it's sad.

So when you start talking about people who have been around for 35 years and they've never seen a program like this--no, because they love cookie cutters. They love it the way it is because it promotes the Federal Government making decisions for the States and local communities, as opposed to the local communities being able to develop their own programs.

So let me tell you what they did to Florida. In Florida, at one point in time, back in the times that we're talking about, we got 69 percent of our money back while States in other areas of the country, including the northeast, got maybe two times that amount of money. So the money and the funding and the flexibility were all nonexistent. Why?

If I were on the take, I would have liked to have kept it the way it was, but when we begin flattening it out and giving every State a chance and returning more moneys back to the State and with that return also allowing them to make their own choices on how they would fund their transportation projects and what kind of needs they have, and being able to, with flexibility from the Federal Government, provide for those needs for local communities, there are a lot of people who say, I don't want to do it that way. Why? I love cookie cutters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the Members that this bill, H.R. 7, will also be allowed to be amended. It will require another rule. There's no previous question in here; we're not moving towards that. We're going to have the opportunity to amend that bill at a later date. So I did say that in my opening remarks. I just want to remind the Members.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And the answer to that question is that this--different from the last Congress--this Congress allows amendments to bills, lots of them. There have been a huge amount of amendments filed to this H.R. 7, and it's going to take awhile to go through them to make sure they're germane and so forth. The meeting is coming. Don't worry about that. It's just not going to happen by 2 o'clock.

Yes.

I'm not talking about future amendments; I'm talking about the ones already filed. There are many, many amendments. In reviewing those, there's a process, and we're going to do that.

Not to my knowledge, no.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would tell you this, I'm only here as the manager of this rule. No other position do I espouse or claim. However, I can tell you over my dead body the Rules Committee will not go forward unless we have reviewed those amendments and come back with a second edition that would allow for all of the things that you said in that particular statement out of that page.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would only remind the Members that there is nothing that leaves this Chamber without an up-or-down vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

Improvements to our infrastructure are waiting. Stable construction jobs are waiting. Unemployment lingers above 8 percent nationally and near 10 percent in central Florida.

A long-term reauthorization is necessary, not just another short-term extension like we have become so used to in this body. It streamlines and consolidates Federal transportation programs, cuts red tape and Washington bureaucracy, increases funding flexibility to the States and local government, better leverages existing infrastructure resources, and encourages more private sector participation in building our Nation's decaying infrastructure. It provides 5 years of certainty and stability with flat funding that is paid for without raising taxes.

The American Energy and Infrastructure Act is long overdue. We can't delay anymore. It's time to stop putting off until tomorrow what we should have done yesterday.

This bill eliminates the typical cookie-cutter approach that Washington has used over and over again to fund all kinds of programs, including transportation. This is a great policy that consolidates many programs, that allows States the flexibility to build their own programs. It allows local communities and NPOs to design a program of transportation that fits their needs.

It can only be done when we consolidate these programs and make the reforms found in this bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 19 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 15, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

call up House Resolution 537 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill.

House Resolution 537 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act.

The rule makes six amendments in order. Of these, five are Democrat- sponsored amendments and one is a Republican-sponsored amendment. The only amendments not made in order were either because of a lack of germaneness and/or they were duplicative in nature or the subject of other amendments.

H.R. 1734 has come to the floor under regular order. The applicable subcommittee held two hearings specifically on this bill and held an additional six hearings on the subject of Federal property consolidation. The subcommittee held a markup and subsequently passed the bill out by voice vote. The full committee also held a markup during which several amendments were considered before the bill was reported out of committee. Further, H.R. 1734 enjoys a bipartisan list of cosponsors.

The Civilian Property Realignment Act enjoys bipartisan support because it tackles an inherently bipartisan issue: making government work more efficiently in order to better safeguard taxpayer dollars.

The Federal executive branch agencies hold an extensive real property portfolio that includes 429,000 buildings and over 1 million total properties. In fact, the Federal Government is the largest owner and manager of real estate in our country.

The Office of Management and Budget in 2007 estimated that the Federal Government is holding $18 billion in real property that it does not need. If we sold all excess Federal properties, the resulting proceeds could approach $15 billion, on top of the annual savings reaped from reduced maintenance and operating costs.

These properties have been accumulated by the agencies over time and in many cases these agencies' missions have evolved over that period. As missions change, so agencies' needs also change. As a result, many properties that were once crucial have become less useful, or in some cases unneeded altogether.

According to the Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 2009--the most recent data available--the government held 10,327 unneeded buildings and spent $134 million annually to maintain them. According to Office of Management and Budget testimony delivered before Congress, the Federal Government has approximately 55,000 properties classified as ``underutilized.'' It costs taxpayers nearly $1.7 billion annually to operate underutilized Federal buildings, according to the Government Accountability Office.

H.R. 1734 would establish an independent commission to make recommendations to Congress to better manage the inventory of Federal civilian real property. The commission, consisting of eight members appointed by the President, would report annually on its findings. Under the bill, within 6 months of enactment the commission would identify and recommend to the President and Congress the sale of at least five high-value Federal properties with an estimated fair market value of at least $500 million. Both the President and Congress would have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of these recommendations. The President could transmit recommendations from the commission, with or without his approval, to Congress, where an up-or-down vote would take place under an expedited procedure.

H.R. 1734 is modeled after the base realignment and closure--BRAC-- process and would require an examination of Federal civilian real properties across government, used and unused, and make decisions based on the best return to the taxpayer. Military installations, properties deemed essential for reasons of national security, and national parks are not subject to the commission's jurisdiction.

The cost-saving initiative would achieve a reduction in the size of the Federal Government real property inventory by selling or redeveloping underutilized properties, increasing the utilization rates of existing properties, and expediting the disposal of surplus properties.

Given the vast real estate holdings of the Federal Government, poor asset management and missed market opportunities cost the taxpayers significant sums of money. The Government Accountability Office has placed real property management on its list of ``high risk'' governmental activities, citing excess and underutilization of real property, deteriorating and aging facilities, unreliable data, and overreliance on costly leasing.

H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, seeks to reduce the Federal Government's footprint, increase efficiency, and ultimately enhance stewardship of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. It isn't just about closing buildings. It's about looking at the taxpayers' assets and deciding whether or not they are being efficiently utilized. Given the realities of the current economy, this is the same type of belt- tightening taking place all over our Nation right now. It's time for our government to start leading by example.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we have no other presenters. We are ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

The cost of real property to the Federal Government--costs are significant, and most agencies do not have the incentives to minimize those costs. Properties sit vacant and woefully underutilized, not only costing taxpayers billions of dollars, but often are eyesores in the local communities, and steal property away from the ad valorem revenues of local communities.

Even so, despite the current budget climate, many agencies continue to seek more space than is necessary, reducing efficiency and increasing cost. Better management of Federal property presents an opportunity to reduce expenditures and increase revenues.

H.R. 1734 is a bipartisan measure. It seeks to address a problem that has become a hallmark of our bloated, inefficient Federal bureaucracy. H.R. 1734 is intended to bring an independent process outside the bureaucratic red tape to the management of real property owned by the Federal Government. It will reduce waste, increase efficiency of the Federal Government, and produce significant savings for the taxpayer.

With deficits over $1 trillion in the Federal Government, we simply can't afford to sit on money-losing properties and empty Federal buildings any longer. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and passage of the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 533 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 533 provides for a standard rule for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 658, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, the United States aviation industry currently accounts for nearly 11 million jobs and contributes $1.3 trillion to the Nation's gross domestic product.

Regrettably, since September 30, 2007, the FAA has operated under a series of short-term, stopgap extensions. In fact, there have been 23 extensions of the FAA programs since the last multiyear reauthorization was signed into law 8 years ago. I'm relieved that we have finally stopped playing politics with the safety of our airline passengers and appear to be on the verge of passing a necessary, meaningful, and long- term FAA reauthorization.

The FAA conference report provides responsible funding for FAA safety programs, air traffic control modernization efforts, known as NextGen, and operations through 2015. It holds spending at fiscal year 2011 levels while providing $13.4 billion in projects that will create much needed construction jobs. The conference report contains no earmarks, and it does not raise taxes or passenger facility charges during this difficult economic time.

With the passage of the reauthorization, the deployment of NextGen technologies to replace our current, outdated, ground-based air traffic control system will begin. NextGen will bring an estimated net $281 billion benefit to the overall U.S. economy through decreased flight delays, decreased fuel use, and job opportunities for new, high-tech companies.

The House-Senate agreement will also improve aviation safety for passengers, reform antiquated programs that have become overly reliant on government subsidies, and establish a process to address outdated and obsolete air traffic control facilities, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.

Because we are finally passing a 4-year authorization, the conference report will provide long-term certainty for the aviation industry and all who rely upon it. This certainty will produce an environment which allows for the creation of high-paying and sustainable jobs. Instead of wondering whether or not the next extension will squeeze by just before the expiration, employees and job creators can budget,

plan, and grow with confidence that government will not pull the rug out from under them.

While I'm excited that we have finally embraced the benefits of certainty and stability when it comes to our aviation system, I can't help but state what many Americans probably feel is obvious: This is how the system is supposed to work.

Far too often, Congress jumps from crisis to crisis, many of which appear to this freshman Member to be self-created. Far too often, because of the unwillingness of some to cooperate, we have been forced to wait until we're up against some kind of deadline that if we don't act, something else looms on the other side. This is no way to legislate, and it's no way to govern. It certainly isn't the legislative process I learned in my 7th grade civics class. Instead, we should be striving to do our work as the Founding Fathers envisioned. They understood and anticipated that the House of Representatives and the Senate would not always walk in lockstep agreement on every issue.

On the second day of the first Congress, on April 7, 1789, there was a conference committee appointed by the House and Senate, and they worked out their differences. Since that time, the House and Senate have formulated positions, each of which may be somewhat different, and yet conferees would be appointed to manage that Chamber's position and to hash out differences and produce an agreement that both Chambers could agree on.

In my first year in Washington, however, it seemed that is the exception much more than the rule. Much more often, one side takes a position, and then on the other side they refuse to do the same, and there's a lack of any kind of compromise or cooperation. I'm not interested in assigning any blame on whom or why that has taken place or why the process is the way it is. I do believe, though, that cooperation takes a willing partner, and we can be that willing partner.

Today is a good day, but we have so much more work to do. Even though the process is not a headline-getting opportunity, the process is important. To me, the more we can push down the pyramid of power and spread out the base and let every Member be a player, we'll have a process that both the House and the Senate can work on and work with each other on and cooperate and the better the policy will be. If the process is broken, sure enough, the product is broken. If the process is good, as this process has been, then I guarantee you, the unintended consequences that usually appear in bills that are pushed through in the dark of night are done away with. And we have an opportunity to do that today. So no one got everything they wanted, and yet this is a picture of how it ought to be.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both of those measures.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the House know and the Speaker know that this conference report was signed by all the Republicans and Democrats. There are a few people against this, but not many. It's a bipartisan effort. All the Democrats in the Senate signed the conference report. So I believe this is a great bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, so I would like to inform my colleague I am ready to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we're finally getting ready to provide certainty and stability to our aviation industry and to those who depend on it for their livelihoods and safe travel.

The agreement reached between the House and Senate conferees is far from perfect, and I doubt everyone got everything they wanted. But it promises to improve air travel for passengers, comfort and safety, while ensuring a more modern air traffic control system. It keeps spending flat, and it's free of earmarks, tax increases, or any increase in passenger facility charges. It provides funding for airport infrastructure projects that will spur much needed construction jobs for an industry that has been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn.

This conference report represents a step in the right direction. While long overdue, in this instance, the legislative process has finally worked, and Congress stands ready to work the people's will.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and its passage along with the underlying bill and its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome the Orlando Deanery Boychoir and Girls Choir to Washington, DC. An outreach ministry of the Cathedral of St. Luke in Orlando, the choirs are founded on European models and affiliated with the Royal School of Church Music in England. Students participating in the choirs develop the ability to create beautiful music and learn teamwork, professionalism, and respect for other cultures.

As representatives of Central Florida, the choirs serve our community, nation, and world. In addition to frequently performing in the greater Orlando area, the choirs have toured venues in the United States including Carnegie Hall, and abroad in many countries, such as Canada, Austria, Japan, and the Czech Republic.

Recently, the President Barack Obama recognized the choirs' talent and invited them to perform at the White House on Tuesday, December 20, 2011. The parents and directors of these choirs should be pleased with these exemplary students due to the discipline and dedication required to achieve this level of recognition.

On behalf of the citizens of Florida's 8th Congressional District, I am pleased to recognize the Orlando Deanery Boychoir and Girls Choir and congratulate the students for their hard work and accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Valencia Community College on earning the inaugural Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence. The Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence recognizes extraordinary accomplishments in community colleges, applauding those that serve as models for elevating community college education.

Valencia Community College was selected by the Aspen Institute after a competitive, year-long process during which 120 of the nation's top community colleges were judged based on student performance and graduation rates. Of Valencia Community College's full time students, more than half graduate or transfer within three years. This is well above the national average of 40%.

Founded in 1967 as Valencia Junior College, Valencia Community College's goal was to make its students successful, both in the classroom and in their personal and professional lives. Today, Valencia Community College is the third largest community college in Florida, educating more than 50,000 students each year.

This is not the first time Valencia has been recognized for excellence in education. Indeed, Valencia has a long history of national distinction. Valencia was recognized in 2009, with the inaugural Leah Meyer Austin Institutional Student Success Leadership Award; in 2007, by the New York Times as a leading community college; in 2001, by TIME Magazine as one of the nation's best schools at helping first-year students to excel; and in 1998, the National Alliance of Business named Valencia the Community College of the Year.

On behalf of the citizens of the State of Florida, I am pleased to congratulate Valencia Community College's President, Dr. Sanford Shugart, and Valencia Community College's Administration, Board of Trustees, and faculty for pursuing excellence in community college education, both nationally and as a critical part of Florida's education system. May their hard work and dedication inspire others to follow in their footsteps.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize the Colonial High School Chamber Choir during their visit to Washington, DC. Founded in 1959, Colonial High School is located in Orlando and is committed to educating its students in a learning environment based on excellence in academic performance, enabling students to become productive and responsible citizens.

The Chamber Choir is made up of 26 audition-selected students from the 150-student Colonial High School Chorus. Their talent is most recently marked by an invitation to perform at the White House on Friday, December 9, 2011. The parents and educators of these students should be very proud of the dedication and discipline required to get to this level.

On behalf of the citizens of Florida's 8th Congressional District, I am pleased to recognize the Colonial High School Chamber Choir and congratulate the students for their hard work and accomplishment.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 487 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 487 provides for a structured rule for consideration of House Resolution 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act.

The rule makes 8 of the 11 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order, a majority of which are Democrat amendments, in order to have robust debate here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

H.R. 1633 passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee with bipartisan support after proceeding through the committee process under regular order. A subcommittee hearing was followed by a subcommittee markup, and then a markup was held by the full committee, which passed the bill with bipartisan support.

The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act is quite simple. It seeks regulatory certainty in the short term and a regulatory, commonsense approach in the long term. Specifically, this legislation does two things. First, in the short term, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act would temporarily prohibit the EPA from issuing a new coarse particulate matter standard for 1 year.

H.R. 1633 does not prohibit EPA from issuing a revised standard for coarse particulate matter after this 1-year timeout. Coarse particulate matter, or PM10, is also known by a much more common name: dust.

Second, in the longer term, this legislation would limit future EPA regulation of nuisance dust to areas where it is not already regulated by State or local government, where it causes substantial adverse effects, and where the benefits of the EPA stepping in would outweigh the costs.

Nuisance dust is particulate matter that is generated primarily from natural sources, dirt roads, earth moving, or other common farm activities. Nuisance dust is pieces of plants plowed up during tilling, soil disturbed by the movement of livestock or bits of rock kicked up by a truck driving down a dirt road. The definition specifically precludes combustion emissions, coal combustion residues and radioactive particulate matter from mining operations.

H.R. 1633 does not eliminate EPA's authority to step in if local or State regulatory efforts fall short of what is needed to adequately protect the public. The bill would allow EPA to step in and regulate ``nuisance dust'' in areas where States and localities do not do so, if it substantially hurts the public health, and if benefits of applying these standards outweigh the cost.

So in summary, if it isn't regulated, it would harm public health, and the benefit of regulation would outweigh the cost of regulation. The EPA could, and presumably would, fill that void.

While EPA Administrator Jackson has announced that she does not plan on changing the standard, EPA has been actively considering a revised, more costly and stringent standard as part of the review process. The same review process increased the stringency of that standard in 1996 and most recently in 2006. Prior to the administrator's announcement, EPA's staff had recommended further changes to the standard.

Despite Administrator Jackson's statement, there is nothing currently on the books preventing the EPA from adopting a stricter regulation. Further, as we all know, the environmental lobby could force a more stringent standard regardless of what the EPA announces, finalizes, or proposes through legal action.

This legislation provides ironclad certainty to farmers, ranchers, small business owners that farm dust would stay off the EPA's to-do list for at least another year. For that very reason, farming, agricultural and rural small business organizations of all shapes and sizes have put their steadfast support behind this legislation. To them, certainty means the ability to grow their business by creating jobs in their communities, feeding every American, and providing for their families through the sale of the fruits of their labors.

The agricultural community and, more largely, rural America is critical to economic growth and job creation. The agricultural sector alone supports 1.8 million American jobs and represents 5 percent of our Nation's total exports. The Obama administration has acknowledged the importance of economic health for rural America. In fact, the President's White House Rural Council has claimed that rural America is ``central to the economic health and prosperity of our Nation.''

Unfortunately, it is often rural communities, particularly those in the western United States, that suffer from the highest rates of unemployment and are least equipped to bear the burden of additional costs stemming from Washington.

So once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The relevant committee of jurisdiction has worked to provide us with a bipartisan bill which, at its core, quite simply offers regulatory certainty in the short term and commonsense regularity relief in the long.

This bill is not a cure-all, but is a step in the right direction. While a small step, it is a commonsense approach to fixing what's wrong in Washington, D.C. It's a step that many in

Congress on both sides of the aisle seem ready and willing to take.

As I mentioned, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act passed out of subcommittee and full committee with bipartisan support. The bill has over 100 bipartisan cosponsors. Companion legislation in the Senate also enjoys that same bipartisan support.

Let's ensure rural businesses and American farmers that at least for 1 more year they can cross dust off the list of the potential bureaucratic burdens passed down from Washington.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes ``on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

That's a good reason as to why we should pass this bill. The real cure for unemployment is employment. If we can remove the uncertainty from the marketplace for farmers and for those in other places in this country through limited regulation--good regulation but not by overburdening the businesses and the job creators of this country--then we will have the opportunity to solve that problem, to solve it by hiring people.

I am hoping that this bill will pass. In knowing that it probably will pass in the House, I hope the Senate takes it up and the President signs it, and I hope we end up with less regulation in an area where many, many jobs could be created and where certainty could be provided if we would only pass this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Yes, Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over. We've got time.

We have a plan. House Republicans have a plan. It's down here on this card. We have a plan, a jobs plan. Twenty-five of those issues have already passed this House and they went to the Senate. And where are they? I don't know. They're there. They're ready to be acted on.

Let me just give one. The union labor in this country rallied around that bill a couple of days ago and said we want to build the pipeline. It's tens of thousands of jobs. Many of the Democrats opposed that, and yes, it's thousands and thousands of jobs. Is it a job creator? Absolutely.

Do we have a plan? We have a plan, and that's just one of the 25 that's waiting in the Senate for action. We need to have action there. We have a plan. We have job plans, this is it, and we're ready to move this country forward, get our economy rolling again, creating jobs, and making this economy better for everyone in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This bill provides for ample open debate, allowing for the colleagues here on this floor and across the aisle, both on our side and theirs, to offer amendments to this bill.

The underlying bill isn't particularly controversial. As a matter of fact, it's rather simple. This bill has no effect on direct spending. It does not appropriate any money or have any new appropriation in it at all. This bill creates no new programs. It has nothing to do with CutGo or pay-as-you-go, either way. It doesn't do either.

In the end, I can't imagine 186 different groups being so stirred up in this country to write and to call and to ask for this legislation, groups like the National Corn Growers Association and the Sheep Growers Association and the Association of Cooperatives and the Farm Bureaus across this country and the American Soybean Association and many, many more getting stirred up about nothing?

No, that argument is heifer dust. It is. This argument is real, it's true, and it's right, and it's absolutely just like what's happening in EPA in many other areas.

The underlying bill, as I said, is quite simple. It provides much- needed certainty in the short term for agricultural, ranching, and rural businesses by hitting pause on the EPA's runaway regulatory machine for just one measure for just 1 year.

H.R. 1633 simply says that now is not the time to thrust yet another burdensome, costly and, in EPA's own judgment, unnecessary regulation on rural job creators. In the long term, it offers regulatory relief to rural America by acknowledging that States and local communities are better suited to manage dust in their own communities and thus grant them the flexibility to do so.

It's particularly offensive because it's like the old cookie-cutter approach that Washington uses, the same program that's good for Ocoee, Florida, is good for Butte, Montana, and inner-city New York, and it's wrong. We ought to get rid of the cookie-cutter approach and go back to local communities and State governments and let them solve their problems, as opposed to one-size-fits-all Federal Government.

Given the state of the economy, given the EPA administrator's own comments about the lack of need to further regulate farm dust, given the dearth of scientific evidence that says that this is a danger, there is some sort of danger from farm dust, this legislation represents a commonsense effort to create an environment for job creation that all Members should support. It gives farmers, ranchers, and other rural small business owners the certainty, at least when it comes to dust, that costly regulations would not shackle their ability to focus on growing their business, providing for their families, and creating much needed jobs in rural America.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and passage of the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Florida, I rise today to honor the life, service, and sacrifice of Pfc. Theodore B. Rushing. Pfc. Rushing was killed in action in Afghanistan on Veterans' Day, November 11, 2011.

Growing up in Central Florida, Rushing graduated from Altamonte Christian School. After earning his associates degree from Seminole State College, Rushing chose to enlist in the U.S. Army, with plans to follow his father's footsteps and join the Orlando Police Department. Known to his friends as Teddy, Pfc. Rushing had an adventuresome spirit and loved being outdoors. He was known for being gregarious and outgoing.

After graduating boot camp in June 2011, Rushing continued his training at the Calvary Scout School at Fort Knox in Kentucky and was assigned to the 10th Mountain Division, 71st Cavalry and stationed in Ft. Drum, NY. Rushing was deployed to Afghanistan in August and served in Kandahar province. On November 11, Rushing's unit was attacked and Rushing was killed in combat.

Rushing's medals and awards include the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal. Pfc. Rushing is survived by his father, Rick; his mother, Ann; and his sister, Stacy. His life, service, and sacrifice are remembered by all.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Cecilio Lamar Fowler upon receiving the 2011 Milken Educator Award. Predicated on the maxim ``The future belongs to the educated,'' the Milken Educator Awards have recognized over the last 25 years more than 2,500 teachers, principals, and specialists who have made outstanding contributions to the education of K-12 students.

Fowler is a teacher of mathematics and geometry at Evans High School in Orlando, Florida. A native of Winter Park, Fowler graduated from Winter Park High School and the University of Florida. In only his second year at Evans High, Fowler has demonstrated a commitment to educating and mentoring, requesting the most challenging students be assigned to his classroom.

Fowler emphasizes the importance of education in student lives and believes nothing provides his students with greater opportunity in life than a good education. He has been praised by Evans High School Principal David Christiansen for reaching students previously considered ``unreachable.''

Fowler was awarded the Milken Educator Award for the dramatic improvement his students made on state and local tests and for the efficiency and industriousness of his model classroom, where Fowler encourages peer collaboration and works to help his students achieve confidence-building accomplishments, no matter how small. Fowler is the only 2011 Milken Educator Award recipient in Florida.

On behalf of the citizens of Florida's 8th Congressional District, I congratulate Mr. Fowler for his hard work, dedication, and leadership. He is most deserving of the 2011 Milken Educator Award. I hope his investment in Florida's students and Florida's future inspires others to follow in his footsteps.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Professor James May for being named the 2011 Professor of the Year by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. This distinguished recognition is the only national award for excellence in undergraduate teaching and mentoring.

May is a professor of English as a Second Language at Valencia Community College's East Campus, and is highly regarded for his innovative and zealous approach to education. He is dedicated to providing his students with the tools they need to succeed in his courses, creatively incorporating mobile devices and online tools such as Google docs and

YouTube into classroom instruction. In an effort to share his concepts with other educators, May authors a website where he provides tips on how teachers can effectively connect with their students.

This is not May's first award or recognition. He was also honored by the Florida Association of Community Colleges and named their 2010 Professor of the Year.

On behalf of the citizens of Florida's 8th Congressional District, I congratulate Professor James May for his hard work, determination, and leadership. His enthusiasm and investment in Florida's students is most deserving of the 2011 Professor of the Year Award.