Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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

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 455 provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011. The rule makes 18 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order for robust debate here in the House of Representatives: 10 of those 18 amendments made in order are Democrat- sponsored amendments; 7 are Republican amendments; and one is a bipartisan amendment.

Five information-gathering subcommittee hearings were held prior to this bill being reported out of committee. Further, this legislation passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with bipartisan support by a voice vote.

The Coast Guard is comprised of nearly 100,000 military personnel, reservists, civilian employees, and auxiliary volunteers. It is one of the five branches of the armed services that constitutes our Armed Forces. The Coast Guard or its predecessors has defended this Nation in every war since 1790. Charged primarily with enforcing the laws of the United States in, under, and over the high seas and waters under American jurisdiction, the Coast Guard is asked to serve many functions simultaneously. This is important in my own State of Florida, which has the largest coastline of any of the 48 contiguous States. From drug interdiction to port security to border enforcement, the Coast Guard's reach is wide and its mission critical.

This bipartisan legislation authorizes appropriations through fiscal year 2015 for the Coast Guard to carry out all of its many responsibilities. It also authorizes appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission, including grants for certain short-distance shipping activities. Finally, the bill makes some changes to current law, affecting maritime safety, transportation and the authorities of the Coast Guard.

The rule also allows for the consideration of H.R. 2840, the Commercial Vessel Discharges Reform Act. Ballast water and the subsequent discharge of ballast water are essential to the safe operation and stability of our seafaring vessels. This bill will simply set a single uniform, nationwide standard for ballast water discharge from commercial vessels.

Currently, the Coast Guard and the EPA have developed separate regulations under two different laws to govern ballast water discharge. The EPA's

regulations are particularly burdensome as they allow each State to impose different requirements on top of the Federal regulations. The result: 29 differing and often contradicting standards. A uniform national standard, as set by this legislation, will assure the free flow of ships in and out of United States ports while protecting both the jobs, dependent on their efficient operation, and U.S. waters.

It should be stressed that the standard is meant to protect commerce and the environment. It conforms with the standards set by the International Maritime Organization and the EPA's Science Advisory Board. They have found that the standard set in the bill is the best currently achievable standard. Should a higher standard become achievable due to technological improvements, this legislation allows States to petition for an improved nationwide standard. Further, the bill allows for a review of the performance standard no later than January 1, 2016, and a new review can be ordered upon petition from the States after that.

So, once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has worked to provide us with a very good bipartisan bill, which provides for the ongoing needs of the Coast Guard and the important missions that they carry out on a daily basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentlelady from New York that I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for ample and open debate, allowing our colleagues from across the aisle the opportunity to offer their legislative proposals to this bill.

This bill provides a single uniform, nationwide standard for how commercial vessels discharge ballast water, a standard that protects American jobs by encouraging the efficient flow of goods in and out of our ports while also protecting our unique water bodies. More importantly, the bill provides the service men and women of the United States Coast Guard the funding they need to fulfill their critical missions: keeping our borders secure, preventing drugs from infiltrating our communities, and safeguarding our men and women.

Service men and women in the Coast Guard deserve our gratitude and support. This includes Coast Guard veterans, such as Garrett Bess, a member of my own staff here in Washington, D.C. Partisanship has no place in providing the resources necessary for those brave men and women in uniform to do what they do best, keep us safe. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and passage of the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, childhood obesity is on the rise. In 2010, 17% of children and adolescents, ages 2 to 19, were obese, and 32% were overweight. Not only has obesity been linked to an increased risk of developing diabetes, asthma, and heart disease, it may also cause our children to lead shorter lives. Apart from the serious individual health concerns associated with obesity, there are long-term consequences that affect society as a whole, including increased medical and disability costs and decreased work-force participation.

To address these concerns, children's hospitals around the nation are working to educate families about nutrition and fitness. In Orlando, Florida, the Florida Hospital for Children has implemented a program called ``Healthy 100 Kids'' at the Walt Disney Pavilion. This program seeks to help children live to a healthy 100 years old by providing families with medical care, nutrition, and fitness education. There are currently 300 families in the program, many of whom are underprivileged. In the first year of the program, 60 percent of patients reduced their body mass index and lowered their cholesterol by eating more fruits and vegetables and lowering their sugar intake. I commend the efforts of the Florida Hospital for Children and children's hospitals across the nation, and the investment they are making in the health and wellbeing of our children, who are the future of America.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 711, I was attending a memorial service in Florida. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 15, 2011, I will be absent and unable to cast my vote in favor of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference

Act, because I will be in Florida attending the memorial service for my friend, David I. ``Dave'' Bitner. David Bitner was a great Florida statesman, my esteemed colleague in the Florida legislature, and my personal friend for over 20 years. I was saddened by Dave's death on September 8, 2011, which came soon after his diagnosis with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). Although I wish to cast my vote in favor of H.R. 2587, my long-time friendship with Dave and his wife, Wendy, requires me to attend the memorial service in Dave's honor.

I support the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, and I voted in favor of H. Res. 372, the rule for H.R. 2587, in the Rules Committee hearing held on July 26, 2011. (Rules Committee Record Vote No. 121.) I strongly believe in the right of American business owners to make decisions regarding where and when to conduct business, and the right of states to determine the best labor policies for their citizens. I oppose excessive governmental regulation and interference by federal executive agencies that do not have the authority to supplant the best operational judgment of businesses in their employment, production, location, and other investment decisions. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board has taken unprecedented, protectionist actions on behalf of labor unions that fly in the face of federalism, and this cannot be allowed to continue. I am proud to represent the constituents of the 8th Congressional District of Florida, which is a right-to-work state, and I will continue to oppose efforts to impede American private enterprise, capitalism, and economic freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I would have voted ``yea'' in favor of H.R. 2587, had I been present, rather than in Florida for the memorial service for my friend, David Bitner, in support of his wife, Wendy.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to recognize Ms. Julie Young upon receiving the 2011 Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education. Ms. Young is highly regarded for her hard work and dedication to improving education in this country and for helping to create a smarter, better educated world.

Ms. Young is President and CEO of the nation's largest and most influential virtual program: Florida Virtual School. Her journey began with a love for teaching and a dedication to learning that dates back to childhood. Today, she is passionate about the positive impact that Florida Virtual School has on thousands of families. I have been fortunate to work with Ms. Young as the Florida Virtual School has grown from 77 students in 1997 to its current enrollment of over 130,000 K-12 students.

Ms. Young's interest in combining technology and learning began when she served as a teacher trainer for a partnership between her school district and IBM. That experience also ignited her with the vision to apply proven business principles to education. She interacts regularly with business, education, and policy leaders across the nation to shape the future of learning, and she sees Florida Virtual School playing a significant role.

Ms. Young is also excited about the opportunities online education and blended learning models have provided for the profession. These innovations help to retain great teachers who might have otherwise left the field. She takes particular pleasure in identifying and growing leaders.

In addition to directing the work of 1,500 employees, Ms. Young is a frequent national speaker. She serves on the Board of the United States Distance Learning Association, International Association for K-12 Online Learning, Florida Learning Alliance, Florida TaxWatch Center for Educational Performance and Accountability, Florida Sterling Council Board of Directors, K-12 Blackboard Advisory Council Member, and Microsoft K-12 Advisory Council Member Assistant. She was also recognized by Technology & Learning Magazine as one of the Top 30 influencers in Ed Tech, along with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. In 2003, she was inducted into the United States Distance Learning Association ``Hall of Fame.''

On behalf of the citizens of Florida's 8th Congressional District, I congratulate and applaud Ms. Young for her work. She is most deserving of the 2011 Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education as she inspires others to follow in her footsteps.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)--who has a nice colorful Florida tie on today--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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 370 provides for a structured rule for consideration of House Bill 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act.

The rule makes 11 of the 13 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order for robust debate here on the floor of the House of Representatives. All 11 amendments made in order are Democrat amendments, and this legislation passed out of Energy and Commerce with bipartisan support, gathering ``yes'' votes from six Democrats on the committee, including the former chairman, Mr. Dingell.

This bill has moved through the committee process with bipartisan support because it does not require anything in the extraordinary to do. Distilled in its simplest form, it directs the President to make a decision. It does not prescribe his decision one way or another; it just simply asks him to act, say ``yes'' or say ``no.''

After nearly 3 years of review, study, and comment, the President would have to decide whether or not to issue a Presidential permit permitting the Keystone XL pipeline.

This bill does not allow any corners to be cut, any environmental considerations to be glossed over. In fact, not only has it required an Environmental Impact Statement to be executed, but several supplemental statements have been performed as well.

Furthermore, upon receipt of the final Environmental Impact Statement, but not later than November 1, the President still has an additional 30 days to weigh the evidence and make up his mind. After nearly 3 years, he does not have to approve the project nor disapprove the project; he simply has to make a decision.

And what exactly is at stake? What hinges upon the approval or disapproval of this monumental infrastructure project? American job creation, overdue economic growth, and increased national energy security.

TransCanada believes that the approval of the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will create about 20,000 shovel-ready construction and manufacturing jobs, adding about $6.5 billion in personal income for those workers. It injects more than $20 billion in private sector investment in the U.S. economy.

It generates more than $585 million in new taxes for States and communities along the pipeline route. It pays more than $5.2 billion in property taxes during the life of the pipeline; undeniably strengthens America's energy security by enabling expanded importation of 830,000 barrels of oil a day from our U.S. neighbor and ally instead of importing it from other unfriendly sources.

In fact, according to the United States Department of State, if the pipeline is not approved, ``the U.S. would not receive a reliable and cost-efficient source of crude oil from Canada and would remain dependent upon unstable foreign oil supplies from the Middle East, Africa, Mexico, and South America.''

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Relevant committees of jurisdiction have worked to provide us with a bipartisan bill which, at its core, is quite simple. It simply directs the administration to make a decision on America's energy and security and job creation.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for ample and open debate, allowing our colleagues from across the aisle to offer their legislative proposals to this bill.

Furthermore, the underlying bill addresses two critical concerns, if you listen to speeches made in this Chamber every day, of every Member of this House: unemployment and dependence on OPEC oil.

As I have stated, 20,000 shovel-ready jobs can be created with the approval of this infrastructure project. Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline will also serve to increase oil imports from our friend and neighbor in the north, Canada, while driving down our dependence on oil from countries that, quite frankly, do not share our ideas about democracy and freedom.

Most important, this bill does not force the President to approve this job-creating infrastructure project. It simply asks him, requires him to make up his mind after coordinating with all of the appropriate stakeholders.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in voting in favor of this 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 357 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman 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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 357 provides for a closed rule for consideration

of H.R. 2553, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV.

So far in the 112th Congress, three short-term extensions have been signed into law to allow for the continued aviation trust fund revenue collections and aviation program authority necessary to operate America's airports. The latest short-term extension expires this Friday, July 22.

H.R. 2553 would extend the program for a little less than 2 months, until September 16. The bill maintains current funding levels for FAA, its employees, and airports around the country. The bill includes two simple Essential Air Service (EAS) reform provisions, one of which has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

Both the House and Senate have passed separate versions of multiyear reauthorization bills, so this short-term extension will hopefully give the House and Senate the time needed to work out the differences between the two bills so we can stop kicking the can down the road.

To say that, that is exactly what we are doing. For starters, this is the 21st extension of the FAA program since the last reauthorization. We have been at this exact juncture 20 other times. The last reauthorization, shepherded by Chairman Mica, was over 7\1/2\ years ago. That is a long time. Since September 30, 2007, the FAA has been operating on a series of short-term, stopgap extensions.

Quite simply, it is time to stop doing this. It is too much. The safety of our airline passengers is something we ought to take into consideration and pass a necessary, meaningful and long-term FAA reauthorization.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has worked to provide us yet another short-term extension which will ensure the continued safety of airline passengers, with the hope that the Senate and the House can finally come to the table and realize a long-term reauthorization.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the people who might be watching this that we're talking about House Resolution 357, which is a rule that would allow us to reauthorize an extension of the Airport and Airway Extension Act, which is called H.R. 2553. That's our discussion. That's what we're talking about.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

No. I am ready to close.

In closing, I would like to address one thing about the change that's in this particular reauthorization, that of essential air service, which has basically become the government-funded corporate jet program. We've tried to reduce that. If you're a businessman and you live in a rural community, instead of being willing to drive an hour and a half to get on a plane at a medium- or small-sized hub, you're willing to have the government fund your airplane for you. It's basically a corporate member, somebody who has a business there. He gets on a jet, and to the tune of up to $3,720, we subsidize that. The taxpayers of this country subsidize that, so it's like a subsidized corporate jet.

It's a sad thing. We want to reduce that. We'd like to do away with it, and a lot of us would like to do away with it altogether; but it would reduce that down to $1,000 instead of having to drive, maybe, an hour and a half to an airport. It's a sad thing.

However, another sad thing is that we're here. I am sad about the fact that we're standing here on the floor once again to vote for another extension. I wish it had worked out. I wish we could get together, and I hope that happens in the next few weeks if we approve this. This extension is necessary to ensure continued safety for all who fly, be it for business or pleasure or for any other reason, in the American skies.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 337 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my colleague on the Rules Committee, 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

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

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

House Resolution 337 provides for an open rule for consideration for H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012. This rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for the Members of the minority and majority to participate in that debate. The rule places no limitations on the number of amendments that may be considered, as long as they comply with the rules of the House.

This continues the Speaker's and the Rules chairman's desire and commitment to have transparency and openness, which was demanded by the American people. It's been a long time since we had this type of process, and it's great to have an open process. I think it helps with the partisanship that we have experienced.

The underlying bill funds the Department of Energy, while also moving forward several ongoing construction and operation and maintenance efforts by the Corps of Engineers. It also provides $1.2 billion in emergency funding for the communities of the Midwest and South ravaged by tornadoes, storms, and floods earlier this year. $477 million is set aside for fossil energy research and development. Nearly three times the amount, $1.3 billion, is appropriated for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to ensure that we continue to move forward in developing next-generation power sources and fuels. Critical defense environmental cleanup efforts are funded at a total of $4.9 billion.

This bill recognizes the importance of a long term nuclear waste disposal policy for the United States; $3.5 million is provided for nuclear waste disposal for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site in Nevada. Further, no funds in this bill will be used to shut down Yucca Mountain. Since 1983, taxpayers have spent over $15 billion for the construction of this facility, and this bill reasserts the sense of the body that Yucca Mountain is the future repository for nuclear waste.

Is every program or project funded at the levels that we would like? Probably not. For example, long-awaited Federal funds for the Everglades effort in my home State of Florida are significantly pared back in this bill. I am sure almost every Member of this body could find some program, some project or effort that they would like to see plussed up. This is not a perfect world, however, and at the end of the day the funding levels in this bill represent only a 3.3 percent modest cut from last year.

We have to scale back our spending. Appropriations in the last Congress accrued about $1.65 trillion in deficit spending. That's the largest ever. We borrow about $4.5 billion every day. And we just have to pare back.

Will the cuts made in this bill alone right our Nation's fiscal ship? No, but it's a start. It moves the rudder; maybe a half a degree, but it does move the rudder to turn it around. The bill changes the way Washington has spent taxpayers' money in the past. For example, there are no earmarks in this bill. Also, because this bill is being considered in an open rule, any Member can offer an amendment to increase

or decrease funding levels. Again, a 3.3 percent cut to the Department of Energy and Corps of Engineers budget will not solve all of our Nation's fiscal problems, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Given our current budget situation, the Appropriations Committee has worked diligently to provide us with a fiscally responsible bill that allows Congress to begin living within its means, just like American families and businesses are forced to do every day.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just like to address a couple of items: number one, the tax policy we've been talking about and how we could raise extra revenues. The tax policy we have today was given to us by the 111th Congress. I assume if they had wanted to change it, they would have when they had the majority. They didn't. They gave us the tax policy. We

haven't gotten to that yet, but we will at some point in time.

As far as the money we're using in this budget, it is a small decrease, but we have to do it. We're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar; $4.5 billion a day. We cannot afford it. If we were to increase the allocation in this particular bill, then we would actually be borrowing 100 percent of that allocation increase because we do not have the cash.

So to me, we are here with a good bill. The rule certainly is a good rule. It's an open rule. It's the perfect opportunity for anybody that wants to change this bill to do so. However, the underlying bill is also a good bill. It's done very well.

Just to give you a picture of what the minority said about it in their views that serve on the committee:

``We commend the chairmen, both the sub chair and the full chair, for their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill funds critical water resource projects, supports science activities necessary to American competitiveness, and contributes to our national defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research and nonproliferation funding, all priorities that unite rather than divide us.''

There was a disagreement and that is over the allocation, but we simply cannot afford any more of an allocation for this than we have. The budget that was done is an excellent one under the circumstances.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican colleagues and I are committed to providing a more open, accountable, and transparent process. And the underlying bill went through regular order, including eight different subcommittee hearings. Several Democrat amendments were adopted on the committee level. It has provided an open rule to allow Republicans and Democrats alike to offer their ideas in open, honest debate.

This vote is on the rule, which provides for an open, transparent process where the ideas and policies will rise and fall on the basis of their merit, not on their party affiliations. This is what the American people expect of their elected officials. It's an expectation that's being fulfilled by this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman 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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 288 provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2055, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2012. This rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for the Members of the minority and majority party to participate in that debate. The rule places no limitation on the number of amendments that may be considered as long as they comply with the House rules.

Similar to the open rule that was passed yesterday on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, the only differences are in section 2 of this rule: it does allow for a separate vote on a title addressing the Department of Veterans Affairs. In doing so, we are delivering on the Speaker's promise to reduce the so-called omnibus bill and give Members the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on Cabinet-level Departments contained in the bill.

Part of the Speaker's and Rules Committee chairman's commitment is to have a more open and transparent process. In the end, that is what this does. This is an open rule that allows for debate and for amendments.

I think every Member of the Congress was elected by a group of people in their district, citizens in their district, and they assumed that that Member would be able to come and debate and offer amendments to bills at will. Sometimes that is not the case, but it is the case this particular time. Every one of us who comes here, Republican or Democrat, liberal, moderate or conservative, comes with a desire of affecting public policy in a real way. The only way that can happen is when the process is more open and more honest and more transparent, and that is what this rule does for this particular bill. It has been a long time, yesterday being one of the first times, but a long time since we have considered an appropriation bill with an open rule.

This bill has truly been, I would say, a bipartisan effort. It is one of the first times, and I am very delighted to present the underlying bill through this rule because it is such a bipartisan effort. Even the rule itself was adopted by unanimous consent by the Rules Committee, which is something I have not experienced in my first 5 months here. So that, too, is something very, very different.

I think that is the way the process should work. I think we have got to work together. We have problems in this country, and they are deep problems. If we don't work together, we will never solve them. I think this may be a start of something that might be a little different than the way it has been.

The Democrats on the Appropriations Committee said these things about this bill: the bill sufficiently funds critical military construction, family housing and quality-of-life improvements for our brave men and women in uniform and their families. The bill meets the needs of our military veteran communities for the coming year.

That really states the purpose of this bill, and so to me, it has met the needs not only in the eyes of Democrats but also Republicans.

Further, the care for our veterans and service men and women is not a partisan issue. It's not. It's proven out in this particular rule and this bill.

I would like to stress that there are many programs funded at previous levels or above previous levels that have kept the promise made to our men and women in uniform. It increases the Veterans Affairs budget for things like veterans' benefits and health programs by $8.7 billion to $127.7 billion. It includes the full funding for VA compensation and benefits: education benefits, vocational rehabilitation, and housing programs. It contains $52 billion in advance funding for the VA. The same level passed in the House budget resolution for medical services, medical support, and compliance and medical facilities. This advance funding will ensure that our veterans have full access to their medical care needs regardless of where we stand in our annual appropriations process.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The Appropriations Committee has worked to provide us with a fiscally responsible appropriations bill that promises to meet the needs of our military construction and our promises to the American veterans. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican colleagues and I are committed to providing a more open, transparent and accountable process here. Today's bill is a monumental step towards that right direction, and it's an example of a big desire within our own Speaker's heart to change the way things work here in Washington.

The underlying bill has bipartisan support. It went through the regular order; it provided an open rule to allow Republicans and Democrats alike to bring up their ideas and debate them; and even some that have been brought up by the minority here, those are brought up in a way that we will have an opportunity to amend at a later date.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

In doing so, we are delivering on the Speaker's promise to reduce so-called ``omnibus'' bills to a smaller, more understandable bill that gives Members the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on Cabinet-level Departments contained in the bill.

I will tell you that I experienced the same thing. I used to be a leader of a group in Florida which was known as the House of Representatives. And as Speaker there, we did the same thing. It was the first time ever, and I always knew, a lot of people with questions, can you divide up the different appropriations and send them to a Senate who may have a smaller--yes, you can. And basically all we did was break up the conferences. The conferences stayed exactly the same. The Members were appointed, and two bills, let's say, instead of one were sent to a particular conference while the Senate added their one. And then they were combined at a later date and passed as a general appropriation act.

So it can work, I promise you. I know it's new; I know it's different. You probably would question that there is something behind it----

I do believe it's a good idea. And the reason I believe it's a good idea is because I think there was some angst about looking at a large package at one time, and this is just an opportunity to break it up. I don't think it changes anything. I think it gives us an opportunity to actually scrutinize in a better way.

I don't know.

Reclaiming my time, I will start where I left off.

The vote on the rule, which provides an open and transparent process, which makes no limitations on amendments, where ideas and policies will rise and fall on their merits and their bases and debate and so forth, is an awesome opportunity for this House to speak its will, not just an up-or-down vote on one bill, but an up-or-down vote on amendment after amendment in order to perfect the bill.

The clash of ideas is a good thing. And as we debate these ideas and we hear them on the floor of the House and then we have an opportunity to vote on them, it makes a good bill a better bill. This is what the American people expect from their elected officials. It is an expectation that is fulfilled by the rule and produced in the underlying bill. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this bill.

For over two centuries, our U.S. military has protected America from both our enemies and the enemies of our friends. The valor and dignity and courage of our men and women in uniform remain strong. From Valley Forge to Desert Storm, from San Juan Hill to Operation Enduring Freedom, the fighting spirit of American soldiers shines throughout history.

It is due to the lives selflessly lived and lost in defense of our country that we have the privilege to stand here today free and grateful. So thank you, veterans. And I, too, am glad that this happened just a few days after Memorial Day because it is a great way to remember the people that have given their lives for our country.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate ``Team Wilson'' of the Civil Air Patrol's Orlando, Florida Cadet Squadron for recently earning the Commander in Chief's trophy at the Air Force Association's 2011 CyberPatriot National Championship.

It was almost a year ago that ``Team Wilson'' began to lay the foundation for the success that I am pleased to recognize. In an era when our national security increasingly relies upon protecting vital networks, these young men are committed to acquiring the skills necessary to defend against a cyber threat. Over four hundred and fifty teams competed in the CyberPatriot III tournament for the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to patch and secure computer systems at the National Championship held this past February. I am pleased to acknowledge the achievement of ``Team Wilson,'' who held themselves to the highest standard of performance throughout several rounds of competition and brought home the Commander in Chief's trophy for First Place in the All Service Division.

The members, coaches, parents and mentors of ``Team Wilson'' from the Orlando Civil Air Patrol have certainly earned our recognition. I thank coaches Nina Harding and 1stLt. Mark Strobridge for their steady guidance and dedication to the team's success. I also would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Gary Palmer, whose mentorship and expertise provided ``Team Wilson'' with the tools to match their determination. However, much of the credit for this outstanding victory belongs with team members C/TSgt. Michael Hudson, C/MSgt. Evan Hamrick, C/SrA. Reid Ferguson, and C/SMSgt. Matt Allen. Team Captains C/SSgt. Isaac Harding and C/2ndLt. Shawn Wilson also deserve special recognition.

Meeting the new global challenges of the 21st century is fast hinging upon the capability to protect our critical telecommunications and network infrastructure. I am encouraged when I learn that so many young people are participating in competitions like CyberPatriot III to prepare themselves to serve our Nation on the front lines of the cyber security effort.

In conclusion, I wish all the best to the members of ``Team Wilson'' as they apply their technological competency and commendable work ethic to future pursuits.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 189 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my good friend, 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

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 189 provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011. The rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for Members of the minority and majority to participate in the debate.

This structured rule has made in order dozens of amendments on a wide range of provisions in this bill, but also in transportation policy in general.

In addition to the 1 hour of equally divided general debate on the bill, the rule has made 33 amendments in order, including 18 amendments from the minority, 12 from the majority, and three bipartisan amendments. Of the 24 amendments offered by the minority, 21 were made in order by this rule.

I point out the number of amendments made in order by this rule by specificity because it is so unusual. The last long-term FAA reauthorization passed Congress in 2007, and the rule for that bill allowed for only five amendments to be debated on the floor.

Since the last long-term FAA reauthorization expired, Congress has passed 18 short-term extensions, and never once has any of the rules allowed for any amendment of any kind to be debatable on this floor.

While many at home may assume that when the House debates something as important as the aviation system, their Member of Congress is given the opportunity to offer and submit ideas and debate those ideas on this floor, it has not been the case in recent years.

Today, we will likely hear from Members of the minority insisting that the underlying bill contains inadequate funding, despite the fact that our Nation is facing a $1.6 trillion deficit and we should be tightening our belts just like families across America are doing.

We may hear Members from the other side of the aisle complaining that the legislation eliminates government subsidized ``essential'' air services to rural areas of America, despite skyrocketing costs to taxpayers during an already stressful economic time.

And we may also hear from colleagues that suggest that the legislation contains a poison pill provision on rewriting union election rules, despite those rules being in place and overwhelmingly effective for the last 70 years.

To those complaints, I would specifically and simply ask and suggest: Vote for the rule. The rule allows for amendments to debate alternatives of all kinds to the base bill, to be debated and heard on this floor. To me, that is a good thing.

To be sure, some of the above issues are addressed by amendments, those issues I just mentioned, and they are all going to be debated shortly, as soon as we pass this rule and begin debate on the bill.

So, if you have any concerns with the bill, I would implore my colleagues to support the rule which allows for those concerns to be debated by the duly elected Members of this body. Amendments will pass or fail based on the merits of arguments made by proponents and opponents of these ideas, and if at the end of the process the Members are still not satisfied with the final product, they can vote against it.

However, to vote against the rule, which would allow this debate to take place, suggests satisfaction with the underlying bill as it is currently written. And I would understand that position, because I support the bill as well. I support passing a 4-year extension that would allow for long-term aviation system planning instead of a merely short-term cookie-cutter fix that accomplishes very, very little.

I support tightening our belt and rolling back funding to 2008 levels to save taxpayers $4 billion over the next several years.

I support consolidating aging, obsolete and unnecessary FAA facilities and expanding the cost-effective contract tower program, which allows airports to utilize privately operated, more efficient control towers.

I support passing a reauthorization that is 100 percent free of earmarks, tax increases or passenger facility charges. And the list goes on.

But most importantly, this debate we have here on the floor right now is for this particular rule. If you don't support these things, the rule allows Members to bring alternative proposals before this House for an open and honest debate.

So, once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule and the underlying legislation. The committees of jurisdiction have worked to provide us a long-term reauthorization that can streamline the modernization of our aviation system while ending the practice of short-term fixes when it comes to funding this crucial service. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this: I came here to talk about the rule. I didn't come here to talk necessarily about the underlying bill, although I do support the underlying bill. The rule is what is before us right now, not necessarily the policy that is underneath

it. We will be discussing that. There will be amendments offered that could change many of the things spoken of by my good friend from Massachusetts.

But I ran for election to this House of Representatives based on the fact that I told people America is not broken; Washington is. One of the things that was broken in Washington was the process. The process that I saw, the process that was inherited by our own Speaker, was a process based on a pyramid of power, and that pyramid of power was so high, it was as high as the Space Needle, probably, and a few people at the top of that pyramid are the ones that made the decision, not anyone else.

So why were there so many closed rules? Because the pyramid of power said this is what we're going to do and this is what you've got to do, and you've got to go vote, unfortunately. That is what I came here to change, and I think the Speaker did, too, and he created a process by which there were amendments offered on the floor of this House on these bills so people can address the problems that they have.

So he has pushed down the pyramid of power and spread out the base so every single Member had an opportunity to file an amendment, and almost every one of those were made available to be used on the floor of this House by this rule. It was done because we want the membership, as the Speaker has said, he wants this to be the people's House. He wants the people to have an opportunity to have their Member heard on particular issues and particular amendments.

Yes, there will be debate on this bill, there will be debate on the underlying measure, and we will be talking about that and I will be voting for that. But that is not what we are here to talk about right now, and, that is, there is a process. It was broken, and we are doing everything we can to fix it. This rule helps do that.

This rule is a rule that allows for open and honest debate on amendments, on the bill itself, and, to me, that is a great improvement over where we have been in the past. So push down that pyramid of power. Spread out the base. Let every Member be a player. Do it by voting for this rule.

I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I still want to bring it back to the issue at hand. We're talking about a rule here, and I have found that no matter what you're making--you could be making widgets or you could be making laws--if the process is flawed, whatever you manufacture, whatever you make is flawed. And that's what we're trying to improve here.

The previous Congress, I believe, had a flawed process. This is an improvement. It allows for 33 amendments. I will remind everyone there were 18 extensions of this particular piece of legislation over the past several years. Not one of them ever, ever had an amendment offered on the floor of this House. This is one piece of legislation with 33 amendments being offered. That, to me, is an improved process.

What happens when you improve the process? When you improve the process, the product is always going to improve. I have a business, and I know, Mr. Speaker, you do. And you know that everything you can do starts with first making that process better. That's what we're doing. That's what this rule does. It improves the process, and by improving the process, the product that's produced by this House--which is not in question right now because there are 33 amendments filed for this underlying bill that have been made available for this House to debate. So we don't know what the final product is going to be, and we'll have to wait and see. That's a whole lot better process than coming in and voting ``yes'' or ``no'' on a particular piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the House again we're talking about this rule. And there was an opportunity to file amendments on all the issues that are being brought up.

There was an amendment filed on that very issue. It wasn't my fault it was withdrawn. It was the sponsor's fault it was withdrawn. Had it not been, there might have been a difference. It might have been heard here. We might have been able to discuss and wouldn't have to discuss it while we're discussing a rule. But for some reason it was withdrawn.

I also want to remind the membership that last Congress, zero open rules. Zero. None. No amendments were offered on this floor. It was like a silence that existed for a long period of time. No Member could stand up and give an amendment to any type of piece of legislation. That's a sad thing. That, to me, is a broken process.

And I'm glad Chairman Dreier came because he too, along with the Speaker, has said we want to have as open a process as we possibly can. We want to allow for amendments. We want to allow for opportunities in a process that's better than last time; that as we improve this process, we're also going to improve the policy that we present to this floor and to the public once it passes and it's signed by the President.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I want to go back again to where we were. We are talking about a rule. We are talking about a process, a good process, that allows for amendments. I know that the other side is thinking, Wow, we've got to come in here and argue this bill. We've got to argue the underlying part. You don't. You've got plenty of time to do it because this rule will allow for good, lengthy debate, not only on the bill, itself, but also on the 33 amendments that have been offered.

I would encourage them to think about the fact that this rule is what we are voting on. This rule is a good rule and an open process, one that allows for every Member to participate. I would tell them, again, to vote for this rule. That's my response to any of the criticisms of this bill.

Yes, they're going to be addressed by an amendment. Come make your case, and see if you can pass it.

I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican colleagues and I are committed to providing a more accountable, transparent, and open process than the minority allowed during previous Congresses. Today's bill is another step in that right direction, an

example of the House Republicans' commitment to reform the way things are done here in Washington. The underlying bill has bipartisan support, it went through regular order, and it was provided a structured rule to allow Republicans and Democrats alike to offer amendments, their ideas, in an open and honest debate.

While I am supportive of the underlying legislation, this vote on the rule that provides an open and transparent process, which allows 33 amendments from both sides of the aisle, where ideas and policy will rise or fall on the basis of their merit and not on any particular sponsor's party affiliation, this is what the American people expect in their elected officials.

I would like to introduce to you one of the new Americans that was born last night at 10:50. This is Claire. She is our seventh granddaughter, and we're excited about her. And she, just like the rest of the American people, believes that it is an expectation that is fulfilled by this rule, the rule that we have here before us, which is that we will have an opportunity to express ourselves in a real, transparent, open way on amendments and the underlying bill and have the opportunity to present ourselves and afford ourselves a chance to vote on each one of those proposals.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the 2010-2011 Wildcat boys Basketball team of Winter Park High School, the reigning state champions from Central Florida.

Long before the first whistle blew in the regular season, the Wildcats aspired to the highest standard with their mantra, ``Make History.'' As the reigning 6A State Champions, the boys were determined to exceed all expectations and become the first team from Central Florida to win back-to-back state titles. Recognized by USA Today as one of the top four teams in the country, these scholar-athletes persevered through a daunting schedule of nationally ranked opponents, with courageously fought losses and inspiring victories, to gain their fourth birth in five years to the Florida state Final Four. Facing their cross town rival in the final game of the state championship for the second consecutive year, the Wildcats were victorious; ending the season with a 28-5 record.

I am happy to recognize the contribution of coaches and players to the Wildcats' historic season. Assistant coaches Eric Faber, David Jacobin, David Stock, and Tom Beard and their longtime head coach David Bailey, offered wisdom and careful instruction to develop the team's innate talent. The starting lineup, all seniors, all going onto college next year, includes Brett Comer, Alex Swanson, and Austin Keel. The Captains, James Ferrell, recipient of the Coaches Achievement award, and Austin Rivers, future Duke University athlete and ESPN #1 ranked player in the nation, also deserve recognition here today. I wish only the best for these young men, as they apply their dedication and work ethic towards even higher pursuits.

As the seniors graduate and move on from Winter Park High, they will pass the mantle of leadership along to the younger players whose consistent effort proved invaluable all season long. Brian Klusman, Perry Klusman, Michael Merlano, Billydee Williams, Josh Williams, Malcom Laws and Kyle Brown, will provide the direction and experience to guide the Wildcats team next year.

In conclusion, I wish the Wildcats success in the upcoming ESPN Rise National High School Invitational. I know that whatever the final score, these players have performed with excellence for a truly extraordinary season.