Floor Statements

Mr Chair, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking member for their effort to bring this bill forward.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 4.

My amendment is intended to offer a pathway to provide authorization for the use of actively tethered unmanned aircraft systems, or UAV's, for public safety purposes, specifically fire engines.

My amendment preserves FAA's discretion to determine the conditions that apply to these operations, while denoting congressional intent for the authorization to cover a wide variety of public safety uses.

My amendment ensures limited UAV operational authority and is available only to actively tethered UAV's that present a lower level of safety risk. This amendment would apply only to systems that:

are physically attached to a ground station with a taut, appropriately load-rated tether that provides continuous power to the unmanned aircraft; and

capable of being controlled and retrieved by such ground station through physical manipulation of the tether.

These tethered public UAV's operating under the authority granted by subsection (a) shall be operated:

within the line of sight of the operator;

less than 200 feet above the ground;

within class G airspace; and

at least 5 statute miles from a tower-controller airport or airport denoted on by the Federal Aviation Administration-with limited exceptions.

My amendment will be a huge asset for our men and women fighting fires and will improve their effectiveness. More importantly, passage of this amendment will help save lives.

I am happy to offer this amendment and look forward to continue working with my colleagues and the FAA to ensure our first responders can utilize this potential resource.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on the Pro-Life Caucus.

Only 52 years ago, abortion was illegal in this country, just as it was largely illegal throughout our country's history. It was illegal before ultrasounds which made it so clear to everybody what was in the womb. It was illegal when medical care was a fraction of what it is today. It was illegal when families lived without electricity or running water.

Despite these hardships, the public knew abortion should be illegal.

How have we responded to our material blessings? How have we responded to these abortions? By saying that we cannot afford these children.

I would like to thank Donald Trump for reinstating the Mexico City policy. I would like to thank him for allowing States to not fund Planned Parenthood with their title X funds. I would like to thank him for defunding the United Nations Population Fund. I would like to thank the March for Life people for coming up here this year and reminding Americans about this important cause.

I hope that the American citizens stop and think: if abortion could be illegal only 52 years ago in this country before we had ultrasounds, if abortion could be illegal in the 1800s with minimal medical care when people were living six or seven people in a room in a house without air conditioning and without heat, then how did these people keep abortion illegal and how do we respond to our blessings by saying that we have to have one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my resolution, H. Res. 407, condemning the persecution of Christians around the world.

The persecution of Christians is a global human rights problem that Congress needs to address. According to Open Doors' 2017 World Watch List, approximately 1 in 12 Christians around the world is experiencing persecution for their faith.

North Korea, which is one of the world's most repressive regimes, is a serious violator of international religious Christian rights, which is not surprising, given it is a communist country. Communist countries throughout history have done what they can to suppress and destroy Christians.

Human rights groups have reported that members of underground churches in North Korea have been arrested, beaten, tortured, or killed.

In another communist country, China, religious groups, including Christians, are required to register with the government. Those that do not face imprisonment and torture.

In 2016, 232 Protestants were imprisoned for their religious activities. As part of the country's anti-cross campaign, some 2,000 crosses and buildings have been demolished since 2014, according to State Department estimates.

In the Middle East, the Islamic State and other jihadist militant groups have forced Christians in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and other countries in the region to flee or risk enslavement, execution, or death. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the number of Christians in Iraq has plunged from 1.5 million to just a couple hundred thousand.

In Libya, ISIS and other extremist groups have gained a stronghold in the country since the fall of Qadhafi.

I reluctantly have to point out that the Christian persecution going on in Libya and Iraq has happened after the United States decided to get involved in these countries, so we have a special responsibility to look out for the Christians there.

In Egypt, ISIS claimed responsibility for killing over 70 Coptic Christians earlier this year.

The persecution of Christians in the Middle East doesn't end with terrorists. It is institutional, as well.

Pakistan has some of the most extreme blasphemy laws in the world. In June of 2016, two Christians received death sentences for blasphemy convictions.

In Iran, approximately 200 Christians were arrested last year. At least 90 remain in illegal detention.

Acts of persecution against Christians across the globe is a violation of international law, which is why Congress must act.

Sadly, in our own country, the United States, sometimes Christians can be forced to participate in ceremonies with which they don't agree. It is kind of hard to believe that this is going on in the United States of America.

H. Res. 407 will condemn the persecution of Christians around the world. It calls for all discriminatory countries and groups to cease their persecution of religious minorities and urge world leaders to uphold the universal human right to religious freedom.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 616.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of my friend and colleague, Mr. Pocan, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, first of all, I would like to thank the chair and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this bill forward.

This amendment, which is supported by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, is pretty simple. It requires Federal decisionmakers in the Department of the Interior to consider the threat of invasive species when installing fishways.

This was brought to my attention while looking at a dam on the Wisconsin River in Wisconsin. Below that dam, we had Asian carp, an invasive species, a huge fish. If that fish was able to get further north on the Wisconsin River, because of a fishway, you could wind up with this invasive species not only in the northern part of the river, but, and quite frankly, in dozens of lakes throughout northern Wisconsin.

As a matter of fact, given where that dam is, if there is even flooding, that invasive species could wind up working its way into Lake Michigan and up the Saint Lawrence Seaway. It is very important that before the Department of the Interior listens to certain environmentalists, they realize that a fishway at this dam would result in big trouble.

Because of the devastating effects invasive species can have on the environment, local fish population, and the economy, this amendment will ensure the Federal agencies take into account all consequences before installing fishways.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from Alliant Energy.

Alliant Energy,

November 8, 2017.

Hon. Mark Pocan,

Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Glenn Grothman,

Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Pocan and Grothman: I am writing in

strong support of your invasive species amendment to H.R.

3043, the Hydropower Modernization Act of 2017, which is due

to be considered on the floor of the U.S. House today.

Alliant Energy deeply appreciates your commitment to this

pro-environment measure, and for protecting Wisconsin's

watersheds.

As you know, an Alliant subsidiary, Wisconsin Power and

Light, owns and operates a dam located in Prairie du Sac,

Wisconsin, on the Wisconsin River. The Prairie du Sac dam,

now over 100 years old, is responsible for the formation of

Lake Wisconsin, which serves as an enormous recreational and

wildlife resource for our state.

Over a decade ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

sought to impose a fishway requirement on the license for the

dam, essentially calling for a ``fishway'' to be installed to

allow for the upstream migration of native fish. Since that

time, however, scientists and state officials have discovered

the existence of non-native, invasive fish species (Asian

carp) at the base of the dam. If a fishway were now

installed, it seems clear that these invasive species would

also be able to migrate--and thereby endanger native fish

populations upstream, including Lake Wisconsin.

Your amendment would ensure that, in this particular case,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be required to

consider the threats posed by invasive species before

imposing a fishway condition on a hydroelectric license. We

believe strongly that such decisions should be predicated on

the most up to date information available, and your amendment

will help guarantee that invasive species are not permitted

to threaten the Lake Wisconsin watershed.

Again, thank you for offering your amendment. Please let me

know how Alliant may assist you in ushering this much-needed

provision into public law.

Sincerely,

David de Leon,

Vice President Operations--Wisconsin,

Alliant Energy.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Speaker, before launching into specific comments on this bill, I would like to correct some misconceptions that we heard earlier today.

We just heard a lady from Illinois mention that she felt this bill would put employers who respect workers at a competitive disadvantage. All good employers know that respecting workers puts you at a competitive advantage, and I think it is very wrong that anybody would imply that you are advantaged by not respecting your workers. So I want to clarify that.

The second thing I want to clarify is, earlier we had somebody talk about temporary workers. Now, temporary workers make less money. It is true with temporary workers, you have a middleman who takes the money off the top, and that is unfortunate. But you have to realize that the reason we have more temporary workers is we make it harder and harder to be an employer in the first place. Whenever you make it harder and harder to be an employer, you force more employers to hire temporary employees so they don't have to be employers in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, now, on with this bill. One of the tragedies we have had in America is the disappearance of small businesses in America. We had more and more big businesses, you know, big conglomerates. One of the ways you can still be a small business is being a franchisee in which you control your own destiny and are able to respect your workers in your own way.

We have to pass this bill to prevent the end--or the practical end of the ability to be your own businessowner by controlling or setting your own contract terms with your own employees. And more than any other reason, that is why I back this bill. I like that we have so many small-business men out there on their own on the franchisor-franchisee model.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving me an opportunity to address the Progressive Caucus, their budget. I think the budget is unacceptable. It is something the American people ought to pay attention to because the day may come in which a budget similar to the Progressive Budget passes this floor.

The first thing to look at is we are increasing maybe by an average of about a little under--well, around $1 trillion increase in taxes over the next 10 years. So you are taking a lot more money away from Americans. And despite this huge increase in taxes, you are looking at about a $70 billion cut in defense.

I suggest that the public and the people who are supporting the Progressive Caucus take some time talking to their people in the current military, talk about the planes that can't fly, talk about the shortage of parts, and ask: How is it possible you could take this much more money from the American people and still feel we have to have significant cuts in our military budget?

But then you look at what we have to spend more on: a 4 percent raise for Federal workers. Look, we wish everybody had a raise, but, really, at a time when we are approaching $20 trillion in debt, is it a priority to give Federal workers a raise?

We put more and more people dependent on government; a large expansion of the program providing free college to people. At a time when, quite frankly, many people who already have college degrees can't get jobs, we are expanding that program. And, of course, by making it free, people will respect it less. And not only will they respect it less, but by making it free, many people will go to college who perhaps otherwise don't feel it is for them.

They won't make adjustments to the food stamp program, which is a problem.

We greatly extend the time that you are on unemployment, and this is kind of bizarre because it is a time when our employment is near historic lows. But despite the fact that until now we haven't had such unemployment for a long period of time, we want to extend unemployment, thereby encouraging more people to stay on unemployment.

I would like to thank my friends from the Congressional Progressive Caucus for allowing students to refinance their student loans, which shows something or another that there is a heart there, a little bit anyway. I wish I could get my own Conference to put that in. But in any event, I urge rejection of the Progressive budget.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 538.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3354.

Since we last met, we began spending, I guess, a new $15 billion on the tragedies in Florida and Texas. I haven't had a chance to see how all of my colleagues are doing, but I sure hope that we are getting nothing but amendments designed to reduce spending to make up for the difference. I hope that is so.

I am looking at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. I am on the Government Oversight Committee. We recently had another hearing on Fast and Furious. I don't think there has been enough contrition there at all. This was, I think, probably the biggest scandal in my lifetime, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has to consider themselves to be a big part of that scandal.

Being from Wisconsin, I am also familiar with a local scandal we had there. If you google ``ATF'' and ``Milwaukee,'' you will find a situation in which they were selling guns which they shouldn't have been selling and buying guns which they shouldn't have been buying. So there is another reason why we should look at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Despite these scandals, their funding has gone nothing but up over the last few years. We are, in this budget, looking to borrow between 13 to 14 percent of this budget, and that is before we begin to have to spend money on the Florida and Texas hurricanes.

I am introducing a bill with a mild 5 percent across-the-board cut to ATF. President Trump had wanted a smaller increase. The Appropriations Committee went $20 million over what President Trump wanted. I don't think that is right. I think they need a little bit of a slap-down here.

I am looking to reduce the amount of spending on this organization by $64 million. I think that is very appropriate given the scandals that they have been involved in. It is very appropriate given that we are borrowing 14 percent of our money. In the sane world, we would almost take every agency down 14 percent. We don't have time for that, but this agency, based on their behavior, seems in favor of that.

I know some people are going to probably not want to cut anything here. We just heard in the last amendment that it appears like some people want to go up. I think this is a modest decrease, and I think they should have no problem finding this small amount of money.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am going to disagree a little bit with one of those past statements.

We have heard the statement made, sometimes behind closed doors by a lot of people, and that is we have an increase of discretionary spending over the last 3 years. This is a mild cut this year, but over the last 3 years, collectively, it is an increase, 3 or 4 years.

There are some people who feel that we shouldn't scrutinize that spending because so much of our budget is mandatory spending. I do feel that we need a larger cut in mandatory spending than the rather modest cut that came out of the Budget Committee, and I hope everybody in our Conference will demand a more significant cut in mandatory spending.

But, nevertheless, discretionary spending is 30 percent of the budget. Common sense will tell you that, as things become more technology oriented, it should be easier for an agency that processes data, like the ATF, to do their business with a little bit less money.

And one more time I will emphasize that there haven't been cuts to reflect these scandals in the ATF, and I think that, if we are not going to kind of slap them on the wrist now, when will we?

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, as mentioned, this amendment was actually drafted by Representative Buck from Colorado. I understand this amendment passed on a voice vote last time.

I do have a nice speech that Representative Buck's office has prepared for me, but I am not going to read a speech that is not my speech. I am sure it is a wonderful speech.

I hope the chairman allows this amendment in.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to point something out. I am glad I have a chance to speak on this amendment.

When I was growing up, I spent a lot of time before school, a lot of time after school, and a lot of time in summer school being supervised by my parents. They did a great job.

I think before we fall all over ourselves to make sure the government is the one supervising people all the time, we ought to remember it is good to educate the public that parents are responsible for a little of this as well, and nobody loves their kids like their parents.

Mr. Chairman, I have 30 seconds, so I will give any listeners a suggestion.

I suggest you spend some time at your local tech school or your local trade school and ask the people who teach there how many of their students are former 4-year students who cannot find a job in the field in which they thought.

These people can have a family-supporting job 8 or 9 years earlier if they are directed to a technical education or a trade school. They will be supporting their families and be able to do that when they are 21 or 22 rather than 31 or 32.

You will learn a lot if you talk to your local tech school or trade school.

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

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

I rise in support of an amendment to reduce funding by 2 percent for the Department of Education's Office of Program Administration, Inspector General, and Student Aid Administration.

I say this because, even a month ago, it was apparent that when we wind up doing the appropriations bill or an omnibus bill or wherever we are, we are probably going to be borrowing about 14 percent of that budget. Then in the last month, we have had two hurricanes hit America, and we have already set aside another $15 billion.

I want to remind people here that we are approaching $20 trillion in debt--$60,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. If you have a family of four, they are $240,000 in debt.

I think given those numbers, every Congressman, when they look at this appropriation document, ought to make as their primary goal spending less money. And again, we are borrowing like 14 percent.

When I was a State legislator, I dealt several times with people from the Department of Education; and, honestly, the few times I dealt with them, I never felt that their positions or what they were doing helped anybody at all. It looked like they almost had too many people there.

So I think a small reduction of 2 percent is something that we should all be supportive of, make a little bit of a dent on that deficit and a little bit of a dent on that huge sea of money we voted for--including myself--working its way towards Florida and Texas.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

No. It is a 2 percent cut in administration, inspector general, and student aid.

Mr. Chair, I think we have had enough debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which will reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board by $99 million in fiscal year 2018. Since its inception, the NLRB has served as a partisan board that flips in ideology from one administration to the next, often cutting businesses off at the knees and stifling economic growth.

In just the last 8 years of the Obama administration, the NLRB managed to overturn a total of 4,105 collective years of precedent in 90 cases. In cases such as the ambush election rule and the joint employer rule, the board significantly overstepped their bounds and dipped their hands into the day-to-day business operations of hardworking Americans.

Now, let me be clear: I am not here to attack the unions. I wish more people would join unions under the amendment that we just dealt with. I believe that employees should have the right to join a union if they think that joining a union is best for them and their family. But the fact remains, since 1990, the NLRB has received 65 percent fewer election petitions and 40 percent fewer unfair labor practice charges. Meanwhile, while private sector labor representation has decreased in the last 25 years, the NLRB's budget has increased in inflation- adjusted dollars by close to $50 million.

My amendment would implement a necessary reduction to the NLRB, which will bring their funding in line with their expected workload for the upcoming fiscal year. Specifically, my amendment saves taxpayers close to $100 million in the upcoming fiscal year and provides private industry with relief that the NLRB will have to focus on the most pressing cases that arise rather than engaging in partisan witch hunts.

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

Mr. Chair, my only other comment is assuming that figure of employees is right, and this is not the total number of employees, just the employees that she envisions being cut, 1,500. I always kind of look at my State, which is about typical in size. That would be 30 employees on a board that I wouldn't think our forefathers would have thought of. So people have to consider for themselves, I guess, whether the average State would even need 30 employees. Here we are just

cutting 30. We are still leaving the bulk of the agency in existence.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, yesterday, we voted $8 billion for the tragedies in the Gulf Coast. I wake up this morning and I find out we are supposed to vote for another $8 billion, which is fine. But I think, as a result, we should also look extra hard to find ways to see if, in the bill as it passed out of the Appropriations Committee, maybe we can spend a little less somewhere.

I have a very modest suggestion for cutting a little bit of spending here. I would like a 1 percent reduction in the Economic Support Fund. This was in the Trump budget, combined with another fund, and subject to a 40 percent cut, I think because President Trump wanted to make good on his promise to put America first.

I realize political reality is such that we will not get the 40 percent cut that President Trump wanted, but I ask for a small, approximately 1 percent, cut of $12 million.

Part of the money of the Economic Support Fund goes for universities abroad. Sometimes these universities have, like our own universities, a little bit of an anti-American, perhaps anti-Israeli bent; and for that reason, I think there is no question but that we should eagerly look forward to the chance to cut the spending in the Economic Support Fund by 1 percent, particularly in light of the fact that we have now a $20 trillion debt and, particularly, because later today, I bet, after spending $8 billion yesterday, we are going to go for another $8 billion today.

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask for support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, we love the chairman. We just feel that we are kind of broke here, and a 1 percent cut on something going for programs abroad would not be out of line.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3354. The purpose of my amendment is to prohibit use of funds made available by this act to implement, administer, and enforce the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone rule, which was originally published on October 26, 2015.

This rule will make the standards more stringent in other places, in the State of Wisconsin, up and down Lake Michigan, including counties such as Sheboygan County. As you make these standards more stringent-- first of all, it makes no sense because they don't take in the fact that there are areas like mine in which the ozone is coming from outside my district.

For example, Sheboygan County, whatever they do, I don't think they could ever meet those standards because there is so much ozone coming up from the Chicago area. But there is an effect to these standards as well.

The standards make it more difficult for industry along Lake Michigan to operate, to comply with the standards, putting us at a competitive disadvantage not only with other parts around the country, but a competitive disadvantage compared to other areas around the world with much more pollution than we have. Right now our ozone is much less than it was when I was a child. Quite frankly, when I was a child, nobody complained anyway.

Another thing about these ozone standards, it is something that people who are looking out for that not particularly wealthy people should pay attention to. When you aren't meeting the standards, it creates a situation in which your owners of automobiles have to have their cars tested every year. And sometimes these cars have to go through very expensive repairs to meet the standards.

Now, there are people who are going to think that is no big deal because they are maybe wealthy Congressmen and they need to buy a car every 3 or 4 years and they don't have a problem. But if you are somebody who has a 10- or 15-year-old car, maybe you can only afford to spend $500, $1,000 on a car, and then once a year you have to get the car tested. You flunk the test and you have to put $1,000 or $1,500 into it. No wonder we have some people in this country who can't get ahead as long as the environmental extremists are running the EPA.

So, in any event, I think it would be good if we don't spend any more money implementing this new rule. Give the EPA more time to reconsider this rule and come up with something a little bit more reasonable.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces the total funding for public housing tenant-based rental assistance, excluding veterans, elderly, and the disabled, by $177 million. Our President, Donald Trump, who was trying to do what he could to balance the budget, actually had less funding for this program than what there was last year.

Because I am a person who believes in getting things done through compromise, I am reducing the increase in this program to only 2 percent from the 4 percent as the bill was shot out of the Appropriations Committee.

I have always had problems with this program. Like a lot of these programs, it kind of discourages work in that the more you work the more your rent goes up. I think, like a lot of these programs, it discourages marriage, because if you are married to somebody with a good job, you could lose your apartment. And, finally, like a lot of these programs, you could take the time to look at some of these projects. I talked to some of the people in my area who administer them. The apartments or rental units given to people who get Section 8 are better than a lot of working people, which doesn't seem right either.

I will also point out, since these appropriations bills were originally looked at, I mean at that time we already knew we were looking at blowing through a $20 trillion deficit, since that time, we have had a couple major hurricanes out there which I think would cause everybody to look for ways to reduce the spending that was put in these bills in July.

Mr. Chair, I am going to ask that amendment No. 39 pass. I am going to ask that we restrict the increase to 2 percent. I can't believe I compromised so much on that, but we will go for a 2 percent increase instead of a 4 percent increase, and hope you will all be glad. Consider it a down payment to help the struggling people in Texas and Florida.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't see how in our current position we can afford 4 percent increases on anything. Like I said, I think there is kind of an inference here that this is overall a good program, and people ought to be looking at this program. Like so many of these means-based programs, they kind of create a situation in which we both discourage work and discourage marriage. I am disappointed that there would be any alliance in this budget that people would feel a 4 percent upper was appropriate.

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

Mr. Chair, just one more time I will point out, it is all fine and good to say the Federal Government ought to be spending more money. We are broke, and we got a lot more broke in August when those hurricanes hit. I think it would be appropriate for everybody around here to remember that the day will come when we can no longer borrow money, and that will be a very ugly day indeed.

Like I said, we could have introduced the amendment to go back where Donald Trump wanted. I know he is a warrior and cares a lot about this country's children and grandchildren. I put a 2 percent upper in there. I think it is sad when people feel a 2 percent increase is being difficult on people. If there are problems back home, there is nothing that prevents local States or counties or individuals out of their own pocketbook to put more money in this sort of program.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this bill forward. I do rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3354, which should be amendment No. 46.

This amendment deals with project-based rental assistance rather than tenant-based rental assistance. It suffers from the same problems, however. One more time, our President, when he introduced his budget looking at the $20 trillion deficit, decided to reduce this program a little bit. And it probably would be good to reduce the program a little bit because, like many of these programs, it is fundamentally flawed in that it discourages work and also discourages marriage.

I have looked at some of these housing projects in my district, and it is again irritating that people who are getting free housing sometimes have better housing than people who are paying for their own housing; therefore, I make the modest request to get rid of the increase in the current budget. I am not going as far as our President who actually decreased this line, but I think it is fair to reduce the current bill by $266 million, which is the increase in the current year.

Again, I think, as opposed to when this bill was originally put together, we have had a couple hurricanes which I think would cause everybody in this building to realize that insofar as we can spend any more money in this budget, it should be focused a little bit more on the people in Texas and Florida, and we should not be increasing other programs.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this bill forward.

As we all know, we are heading towards $20 trillion in debt. One of the agencies that I think has been criticized for a long period of time, to a certain extent for incompetence and to a certain extent wondering whether a lot of their functions are even things appropriate for the Federal Government, is the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

President Trump, who got elected to look out for our children and our grandchildren, proposed cutting this budget overall by 18 percent. I commend President Trump for trying to look out for our children and grandchildren.

The Appropriations Committee has shaved that reduction to 1 percent. The purpose of my amendment is to increase it to approximately a 3 percent reduction, only about one-sixth of the reduction that President Trump wanted.

Since we last met in July, we have gone through two hurricanes. We already voted on an $8 billion appropriation. We know that is just a small downpayment on the new obligations that we are going to have.

I would ask this House to increase that 1 percent reduction to a 3 percent reduction, which is what we have here. I think that is very modest. It is not at all what the President wanted. It is just one- sixth of what the President wanted.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this bill forward.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3219. Nothing is more important than the safety of our men and women in uniform, and I believe that we in Congress are committed to ensuring our armed services receive the best equipment possible. This equipment includes platforms like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, or JLTV. This vehicle is the centerpiece of the Army and Marine Corps' tactical wheeled vehicle modernization strategy and closes an existing critical capability gap for both services.

The JLTV demonstrates many significant improvements over the current vehicle fleet, including strengthened protection for passengers against current and future battlefield threats, more payload capacity, and better automotive performance.

This is basically what replaces years ago what you would call your Jeep. Anybody who talks to veterans or hears about people being injured and all, so many of them died or were seriously injured driving in a vehicle that hit an explosive. These vehicles are going to be a dramatic improvement over what we have now as far as saving lives in our troops.

As long as we have troops in Afghanistan, it is important that, as quickly as possible, we deliver the best equipment possible. To achieve that goal, Congress should maintain its support for the existing JLTV acquisition plan.

Recently, we in the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018. My amendment to this appropriations bill would simply transfer funds from the operations and maintenance account in the bill and then appropriate those funds to the JLTV program to bring them in line with what we in the House authorized in the NDAA.

The JLTV program supports American jobs with more than 300 suppliers from 30 States. Pure and simple, the JLTV platform will save lives and improve our troops' effectiveness in the field. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee for the hard work they have done.

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

Mr. Speaker, one good thing about voting for this bill is the rhetoric we are hearing from this Chamber today. It sounds like the drumbeat from high school guidance counselors, college recruiters, and politicians kowtowing to the education lobby that everybody has to go to a 4-year college or that it is even wise for people to go to a 4- year college is beginning to come to an end.

I am glad, under this bill, we are going to make it easier for students to get a degree focused on skills. For some, that degree could be 1 year; for some, it could be 2 years. Frequently, these degrees lead to jobs that are higher paying than many jobs that you get after you have a 4-year degree.

Not only are they higher paying, but I think they result in more job security because you are not a generalist who will get laid off when you are 45 or 50 and not find a job. But if you have a skill, that skill is something in which you can still get a job when you are 50, 55, 60, or 65. Therefore, I am proud to announce for this bill today.