Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and celebrate the 90th birthday of Mrs. Mary Lydia Matta Garza, of Mesa, Arizona.

Known to her friends and family as Mary Lou, Mrs. Matta Garza is perhaps best known in the Mesa community as the proud owner and operator of the former Matta's Restaurant. Now a Mesa landmark, Matta's was opened in 1953 by Mrs. Matta Garza and her husband, Manuel. Mary Lou and Manuel opened Matta's with only $1,000, and grossed a mere $25 a day in those first few weeks and months of getting their small business off the ground.

Matta's opened as a small storefront, but its family-oriented traditions and atmosphere, and of course, its great dishes based on Matta family recipes passed down for generations, drew larger and larger crowds. The Matta's following grew so much that in 1969, Mary Lou and Maneul were able to expand Matta's home, adding enough seating for 350 people.

Mrs. Matta Garza and her family decided to close Matta's in 2008 after 55 years of serving quality Latin fare. But despite its closed doors, its traditions, and of course, its great food, now live on at Matta's Mexican Grill in East Mesa and Matta's Grill and Cantina in Northwest Mesa, which are owned and operated by Mrs. Matta Garza's grandchildren.

While Matta's was becoming a successful business and Mesa landmark, Mrs. Matta Garza--in between helping to run the restaurant and raise six children--made many important contributions to the Mesa community and the state of Arizona. She launched the Mesa-Phoenix and Flagstaff councils of the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, and served as LULAC's regional governor. She volunteered her time at the Southside Hospital of Mesa and Desert Samaritan Hospital and served as a board member and treasurer of the Mesa Chamber of Commerce. For her many efforts to give back, Mrs. Matta Garza was named Mesa Woman of the Year in 1973.

In her 90 years, Mary Lou Matta Garza raised her six children, saw the birth of 21 grand children, 23 great grandchildren, and even one great-great grandchild. She ran a profitable business that became a pillar of Mesa. And she gave much of her time, effort, and love to her community. Mrs. Matta Garza is fond of saying that giving back in this way will ``reward you tenfold.'' As a Mesa resident, I feel rewarded to have had her as an integral part of our community. Thank you, Mrs. Matta Garza, for all you have done and continue to do for our town and our home.

Mr. Speaker, Arizonans were greeted this morning with the unwelcome news that Cochise County Sheriff, Larry Dever, passed away last night in an automobile accident. The great State of Arizona is in a state of mourning.

Respected throughout the State as a leader and a lawman, Sheriff Dever was also recognized nationally as an authority on immigration and border issues. Every Senator, Congressman, Governor, and local official who wanted to know what was really happening in southern Arizona sought Sheriff Dever's counsel. No meetings or briefings, Powerpoint presentations, flip charts, or easels could compare to a couple of hours in the passenger seat of his pickup truck, driving bumpy roads, one-on-one with the sheriff.

To us, Sheriff Dever was the consummate lawman: tough, fair-minded, straight shooting, no nonsense. To his wife, Nancy, he was a devoted husband. To his six sons, he was a caring father. To his 11 grandchildren, he was a proud and doting grandfather.

To those of us who call Arizona home, we are grateful for the past 60 years that Sheriff Dever has called Arizona home as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of this act. This legislation would provide important regulatory reforms, and it couldn't come at a better time for the economy. In particular, I am pleased to support my colleague from Arizona, Congressman Quayle's Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act that is included in this legislation.

In the West, we have seen the EPA adopt what appears to be a contemplated strategy with respect to the implementation of the Clean Air Act regional haze requirements that includes ignoring submitted State plans addressing air quality issues, inviting lawsuits from nongovernmental organizations, and then agreeing to consent decrees that result in Federal intervention.

While this ``sue and settle'' strategy raises a host of issues, in this instance, it tramples on States' prerogatives, and it flies in the face of Congress' explicit intent to let the States lead when it comes to air quality decisions.

In Arizona, for example, EPA has previously flatly ignored the State's plan for dealing with regional haze. They have instead agreed to a consent decree without even consulting ADEQ, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, that would result in a federally driven and needlessly costly outcome that will not be beneficial to Arizona's residents. While Arizona has sued to be allowed to intervene and is appealing the consent decree, it is likely this scenario would have been more beneficial to Arizonans had this legislation been in place.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and, in doing so, support Congress' intent that the States lead when it comes to air quality planning.

Mr. SMITH Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, job creation is the key to economic recovery. But overregulation kills jobs and burdens small businesses, which are America's main job generators.

The Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act offers many commonsense, bipartisan solutions to the problem of overregulation. Like the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, the Regulatory Accountability Act, and the REINS Act, the bill before us today offers more commonsense, bipartisan solutions to protect small businesses from even more wasteful job-killing regulations and red tape.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I look forward to its passage and yield back the balance of my time.

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

This bill would prohibit the use of funds in the bill to enter into a contract with a company for leakproof drip pans unless the contract is awarded using competitive procedures as defined by statute.

A recent article by The New York Times highlights the story of a sole-source contract being awarded to a for-profit company to produce leak pans used in Black Hawk helicopters operated by the U.S. Army. These pans, according to The New York Times, cost $17,000 apiece, and in the last 3 years the Army has purchased $6.5 million of them.

An Army spokesman is quoted in the article, saying, ``Congress mandated a leakproof transmission drip pan,'' and that the contract was awarded without competitive bids.

I think that we can all agree that any contract administered by the Army or any other Federal agency should be awarded based on competitive procedures, which are already codified in statute.

While there are no line items for these pans included in the bill before us or the accompanying report, the Times reports that the Army has indicated that it ``might get more pans if financing is approved.''

The Department of Defense is already in the process of slashing its budget. They are learning to do more with less as Americans all over the country have had to do in the past several years. If a competitor exists who will produce these pans for less than $17,000 apiece, we ought to make sure that they compete for the project.

The amendment before us now would not prohibit the procurement of these pans even if it is determined that there is one company that can supply the Army with them--now, if there is only one company--but it would ensure that any purchase of these pans is done in a manner consistent with competitive procedures, putting to rest any notion that Congress has mandated sole-source contracts for private companies. This is a good governance, commonsense amendment.

I urge my colleagues to adopt it, and I look forward, if there is any objection--I think it's a good government amendment, but I would love to be able--I can't reserve my time, but I would like to have a dialogue if somebody has an issue with this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

That's correct.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman, and I know that we have made efforts in the past to make sure that these are all competitively bid.

The reason I am bringing this amendment is that the Army stated in this case that this contract was not competitively bid. We just want to make sure, and that's why I appreciate the gentleman accepting the amendment.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It's no secret that the U.S. health care system is broken; however, instead of strengthening the system, the Affordable Care Act took a top-down approach that will leave patients and taxpayers worse off than they were before.

I believe Americans should have access to effective and affordable care. This can best be accomplished by using market forces to improve quality and control cost.

I support allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines and the expansion of associated health plans, health savings accounts, and other free-market reforms that allow individuals to be in control of their own healthcare decisions.

Americans have a choice when they buy a car or go to the grocery store. Why can't they have that same choice when purchasing something as important as health care?

I also support allowing small employers and individuals to pool together to purchase health insurance, thereby giving them greater buying power to negotiate when purchasing a plan.

Expanding health savings accounts not only gives individuals maximum flexibility in determining how to spend their health care dollars, but it encourages saving and helps reduce the overall cost of health care.

Finally, I support reforming the tax code so individuals get the same incentives that employers currently have for purchasing health care.

These measures will make health care more affordable, and unlike the law we are repealing today, they are sustainable.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the achievements in the field of biomedical research of the Translational Genomics Research Institute, known as TGen, over the last decade.

Located in Phoenix, TGen applies the science of genomics, or the study of the human genetics, to finding cures for neurological disorders and diseases such as cancer and diabetes.

When TGen was founded in 2002, Arizona's state and local leaders were excited by the promise of the many novel scientific discoveries that could be made through TGen.

But what was most exciting was that these discoveries made possible through further research into the human genome would translate into immediate and effective benefits for doctors and especially patients.

By partnering with entities at the forefront of medical discoveries like the Mayo Clinic and Scottsdale Healthcare, TGen for 10 years has focused on utilizing genomic analyses to improve patient treatments. Whether it's sequencing anthrax or the plague; finding new clues to Alzheimer's disease; or leading new research partnerships addressing pediatric and canine cancers, TGen's research has changed patients' lives.

In addition to making critical contributions to the scientific and medical fields, over the past 10 years, TGen has made many contributions to Arizona's economy in the forms of investment and private-sector job creation. Investment into TGen and the biosciences spurred growth across the state, and spurred the launch of the Critical Path Institute and Bio5 in southern Arizona; Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute and a northern Phoenix bio campus; TGen North; and expansion of W.L. Gore in northern Arizona.

On its 10th anniversary, I applaud TGen's president, Dr. Jeffrey Trent, and the scientists at TGen for their commitment to make a difference for medical patients and their contributions to creating innovative research for Arizona.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut $200 million from the HOME Investment Partnership and transfer the savings to the deficit reduction account. This simply takes the level of funding to where it was last year.

We are often told we need to cut spending. I think we need to. Yet, with this program, we're actually increasing the funding from $1 billion to $1.2 billion, so it's about a 20 percent increase. This is the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments, designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households.

In 2011, a nationwide investigation by The Washington Post described the program as:

a dysfunctional system that delivers billions of dollars to

local housing agencies with few rules, safeguards or even a

reliable way to track projects.

This was The Washington Post saying this. It wasn't some conservative Republicans. This was The Washington Post. According to The Post:

These lapses have led to widespread misspending and delays

in a two-decade-old program meant to deliver decent housing

to the working poor. Nearly 700 projects awarded $400 million

have been idling for years while the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development has largely looked the other

way. It does not track the pace of construction, and it often

fails to spot defunct deals. Instead, they're trusting local

agencies to police projects.

Again, that was a quote from the investigation.

In 2009-2010, HUD's Office of Inspector General came out with reports that questioned not only HUD's ability to monitor these HOME project funds but also whether the program was in compliance with its own rules. In addition, several Members of Congress have acknowledged concerns about HUD's ability to ensure that HOME funds are used in a way that produce the program's intended results.

The full Financial Services Committee has held congressional hearings in response to these concerns. In a spending bill just last year, Congress included language that placed additional restrictions on the use of HOME funds for FY12. The problem is those are the funds that are being implemented now. We don't even know if they're following the guidelines and are doing what we asked them to do. Yet here we're appropriating $200 million more to them rather than saying, Hey, we wanted you to do these things. Let's check and see if you've done them before we award you with more money.

It's difficult to evaluate these projects when they haven't been done yet. That's the reason we ought to cut back and simply go level with the funding of last year. Again, it's not a cut from last year. It's level funding from last year. It's the least we can do when running these kinds of deficits and when we have this kind of debt and when we've found massive, massive problems with this program.

The remedy isn't to award a 20 percent increase. If anything, we ought to be cutting the program. I'm simply saying with this amendment, let's take it back to where it was last year. What is the point of oversight that we exercise here in Congress if we exercise that oversight, we find problems, we ask for a remedy, and then we award money before we even see if the remedy was actually entered into? We have oversight here. We have the power of the purse. Let's use it.

This program is troubled. It has problems. It's not just people on one side of the aisle that recognize that. The Congress as a whole does. So why in the world are we awarding 20 percent more funding this year than we had last year? This amendment would take it back to last year's funding level.

I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio.

For all I know, this cuts money from my district as well. I have not discriminated in where I have taken money from. I think everybody who has followed the process over the past several years knows that.

With regard to the Central Arizona Project, Arizona repays the Federal Government to the tune of about $55 million a year, still after all these years. The fact that we are 83 percent publicly owned in Arizona means that our local communities have to run their facilities and run their services on just a narrow sliver of private land.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On behalf of the Republican members of the Arizona delegation, welcome, Ron Barber. We are glad to have you here.

Nobody would have wished for the circumstances that made this seat vacant. We all miss our colleague Gabby Giffords, but it was her wish that you fill this seat for the remainder of her term. She got her wish as was the wish of so many Arizonans. Those of us who have worked with your office, with the capable staff during this trying time, have been very impressed with your commitment to the State of Arizona, and that commitment will now continue with your being a Member of Congress.

We welcome you here.

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

This amendment would simply prohibit Members, Committees, and leadership offices from using taxpayer-funded MRAs to purchase online advertisements. These ads are little more than a tool to boost name identification. They blur the lines between official duties and campaign activities. I believe, and I think most of us would concede, it's an inappropriate use of taxpayer money.

I know that some will stand up and say we've got to advertise town halls and whatever else that we're doing.

Let me tell you, all the online advertising that is being paid for by the taxpayers from Members' offices right now, town halls and those other notices represent a tiny fraction of that. Most of it are things like this, ads reading: Congressman X is fighting the madness. Click on this, and then it sends them to their official page, just boosting their name ID.

Representative X is working to lower gas prices by increasing American energy production. Find out more and like my page today.

Another one: Congressman X is committed to creating jobs, driving down spending, and shrinking the size of the Federal Government. That's pure electioneering or campaigning. The taxpayers have no reason to fund that kind of purchase in online advertising.

We already see the abuse that takes place with regard to franking. When you receive in the mail a four-color glossy that you can't even tell the difference between that these days and a campaign mailer, unless you look and see the very, very fine print that is there on the bottom of the mailer: paid for at taxpayer expense.

Enter the Internet world and the potential for abuse is that much greater when Members can target ads. Say if I wanted to run for Governor next, I could say that I want an ad to pop up or my name to pop up when somebody types in a Google search for Arizona Governor. I would submit to you that kind of thing is happening right now, and we've got to stop it before it brings a dark cloud over this body.

We all know what happened with earmarks in years past. It got so rampant and the corruption set in that we had to get rid of it completely. Let's stop this before it really balloons. There is abuse going on right now, but let's stop it before it gets big.

I urge adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

In response, the gentleman mentioned people want to announce town halls and whatnot. That is a tiny, tiny fraction of what occurs in the money being spent, taxpayer money, through franking on the Internet. It's things like this, and I'll just read a few.

This is from a Member:

``Like'' my Facebook page to find out what I'm doing to

create jobs, to reduce spending, and to put our economy back

on track.

How is that necessary for the taxpayer to fund? Come on. Let's get real here.

Another one:

I want to know, do you support a balanced budget amendment

to the United States Constitution?

I don't really want to know that. Members just want to get traffic, name IDs to their Web pages.

Now, I'm not a Luddite here. I have my own Web page. I have a Facebook account. I do all of that, but I do it where it's appropriate--with campaign funds, not with official funds to campaign.

The gentleman mentioned that we ought to just kind of trust the Member--there is a Franking Commission--and let everybody do it. I should mention that, in 1997, when this bill came to the floor, Members thought there was some abuse going on with the franking of mail, so a requirement was put in to add the ``printed at taxpayer expense.'' That was done by amendment on this bill on this floor in 1997. Also, there was abuse with franking too close to an election. So, with an amendment in this bill on this floor in 1997, there was put in a requirement that there is a 90-day blackout period in which you can't do it.

So there is a recognition that sometimes you go too far here. I can tell you that Members are going too far. I would invite anyone to go down to the Franking Commission and take a look at what's going on, to take a look at what Members are sending.

We're going to be voting on this quickly. So I would submit, if you're coming to the floor or watching this debate, you don't want to be on the other side of this issue, because we will be here, sooner or later, banning this practice. I hope it's sooner rather than later.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

In closing, I would just say we have a Franking Commission. They are making determinations like this, and we're still getting this stuff. We're still getting people saying, Congressman X-- fighting the madness. ``Like'' my Facebook page now.

I would suggest that the bipartisanship of this Franking Commission is part of the problem. Both parties say, They're doing it, so we'll do it, too, and we'll both turn the other way.

That's why we get into problems with this. I'm just saying, please, get ahead of the curve here, and get ahead of where the taxpayers are going to be on this issue. I urge the support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment, designated as Flake #1.

This amendment is straight forward; it would reduce funding for the Office of the Secretary by $50,000 and transfer a revenue neutral amount to U.S. Customs and Border Protection salaries and expenses.

This is a nominal cut from the Secretary's nearly $122 million in funding, again only slightly more than the Committee provided for the Secretary to spend on receptions next year.

I offer this amendment as a means of bringing an important issue to both Congress' and more importantly the Secretary's attention.

Let me start by thanking the Chairman and Ranking Member for their attention to border issues in this bill as well as the staff's assistance in bringing this amendment to the floor.

In the report accompanying last year's Homeland Security appropriations bill, the Committee directed the Department to provide a ``resource allocation and staffing model for the ports of entry.''

As would appear to be the trend with Congressional requests for information, answers to questions, or budget documentation, the Department either failed to prioritize or simply ignored this request and it is reiterated in this year's report.

The committee report notes: ``As the Committee has not yet received the CBP workload staffing allocation model, the Committee cannot assess CBP's identified needs.''

As we are all no doubt aware, funding for border security efforts between the ports of entry has increased exponentially over recent years, while the budget for Customs and Border Patrol officers at the ports has not kept pace.

As I travel the border region, in addition to concerns regarding border security and the changing nature of threats between the ports, I hear persistent concerns that our ports of entry are understaffed.

Those serving at the ports of entry have at least a dual role, facilitating legitimate trade and travel safely while also preventing unauthorized people and goods to cross the border.

I could talk at length about the benefits of cross-border trade for communities along our borders and beyond, but let me cite just a couple of examples.

Focusing on the southern border, Mexico is the third largest U.S. trading partner and the second largest U.S. export market, with a reported six million U.S. jobs depending on trade with Mexico.

The executive director of the Arizona-Mexico Commission was recently quoted as saying ``Arizona's border is the gateway for some $26 billion worth of imports and exports and some 44 million people each year.''

A recent Maricopa Association of Governments release cited that legal Mexican visitors spend roughly $7.3 million a day in Arizona and Arizona business exported nearly $6 billion in goods in 2011.

Benefits of trade along the southern border are certainly not limited to border communities.

For example, the Mariposa Port of Entry in Nogales is one of the largest ports of entry for fruit and vegetables in the U.S. In 2011, the U.S. imported 13.4 billion pounds of fresh produce grown in Mexico and more than a third of that entered through Nogales.

Clearly, a secure border and economic stability in the border region are not mutually exclusive and main component of success toward that goal is the right staffing levels.

I can assure you that I am the last member that would support writing any agency a blank check. The process of the Appropriations Committee performing the necessary oversight and accurately reviewing port of entry staffing needs begins with the Department delivering the staffing model and information that was requested a year ago.

I thank the chairman and urge adoption of the amendment.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk that is designated as No. 1.

Madam Chair, funded at $32 billion, the FY2013 Energy and Water appropriation bill that we have under consideration today actually spends about $87 million more than we did last year. With a $1.3 trillion deficit and a national debt that's now more than $15 trillion, I think we have got to do better here.

This amendment simply says let's pare it back. Let's do an across- the-board cut of .027. Now, the reason we picked that number is that would bring us back exactly to last year.

I think when you look across the country, you look at what State and local governments are doing in order to balance their budgets. Sometimes they are going all the way back to 2005, 2004, or maybe more to balance their budgets. What are we doing here in Congress with a $15 trillion debt? We're actually increasing spending on some bills.

Now, we have cut others, and I have supported the so-called Ryan budget where we do make some overall cuts, and that's good. But when you have a bill like this, I don't know how we can justify increasing spending $87 million over last year. Again, as some will say, well, this conforms to the budget agreement, the Ryan budget act and the 302(a) levels that we have set. That is true it does; but I would suggest that if we're increasing funding here, this is a good place to find savings and perhaps the 302(b) level should have been set a little lower.

I would urge adoption of the amendment. Again, this is simply a cut that would take us back to where we were last year--not 2008 or 2009, but FY12. I don't think that's unreasonable.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

What I simply meant was take back the spending level to where we were last year. Nobody wants to go back in time. But if we want to talk of a future for our kids, as was mentioned, saddling them with $15 trillion in debt doesn't give them much of a future. And that's the problem here. We just keep doing that bill after bill after bill after bill--increasing spending.

I take the gentleman's point on the needs of defense, but we've got to find savings. We've got to find savings here. We can't continue to go on and pile up more debt. And I would suggest that

finding savings amounting to one-quarter of one penny on this bill is not unreasonable.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk, designated as Flake No. 2.

Madam Chair, I know we have been on this bill a long time, and I don't plan to take my full 5 minutes here.

This amendment would simply prohibit funding for the Department of Energy Batteries and Electric Drive Technology program, preventing unnecessary Federal spending to the tune of about $171 million.

We all know that for too long Washington has meddled too much in the energy market. Not only has the government proved itself to be ill- equipped to pick winners and losers, I think government is just plain bad at it. The list of winners is dubious at best, and it's a diverse one, from oil subsidies, ethanol mandates, to Solyndra, and now the Chevy Volt. The common thread is a seemingly endless supply, endless stream of taxpayer funding.

Enter the Batteries and Electric Drive Technology program. This is one of the countless acronyms that taxpayers know little of despite helping to fund these programs to the tune of a few hundred million dollars. Interestingly, the BEDT is the very program that developed the Chevy Volt battery that we've all heard so much about and, I think, the manufacturing lines that are now stopping or diminishing.

While I wholeheartedly support my colleagues' commitment to work to reduce the burden of rising energy and gasoline prices, I believe it would be imprudent to acquiesce key funding in this regard to components of the President's go green or go bust initiative. This hasn't gone too well, and I don't know why we continue to fund it.

Instead, I think we ought to eliminate the energy subsidies and preferential policies while encouraging free market growth and innovation. We could start out by eliminating funding for the BEDT.

I urge support for the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, it was mentioned that government research, the Federal Government typically gets involved in research when the return is too far out for commercial enterprise to realize any benefit. I would suggest that that just doesn't apply here at all. We're talking about batteries. And those who tout this program claim that we already have evidence on the road, the Chevy Volt, of this technology working, and so that's not too far out. So if there's technology on the road, or in this case mostly still sitting in the lots, apparently, because these cars aren't selling very well, it isn't out there too far in the future.

I think we get confused about what really is the role of the Federal Government with regard to research when we have programs like this where there could be profit--and is, in certain technologies tomorrow-- and it becomes less research and more subsidy, and that's where I think this program falls into.

With that, I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, designated as Flake No. 3.

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funding for the Wind Powering America initiative under the Department of Energy.

Hot air jokes aside here, nobody can say that the Federal Government has not been good to the wind industry. Turbines made for popular earmarks in Congresses past, and wind technology research and development receives tens of millions of Federal dollars annually. Developers continue to reap billions of dollars from a two-decade-old production tax credit that will hopefully be allowed to expire this year.

But as much as I disagree with my colleagues who would have us continue to prop up an industry that even Secretary Chu of the Energy Department describes as mature, that's not what

this amendment is about. This amendment is about putting an end to Wind Powering America, an initiative that just picks winners and losers and operates in the rarified air of a Federal program that is actively advocating on behalf of a particular industry.

Had you happened across an Associated Press article announcing WPA's creation 13 years ago, you would have mistaken it for a trade organization. The Energy Department described WPA as an initiative aimed at building national awareness of wind's benefits, increasing customer demand, overcoming institutional biases, and even advocating on behalf of the wind production tax credit.

These goals have evolved into egregious examples of unnecessary waste, like a podcast titled: ``When wind developed doesn't match up to potential, look at policy.'' And with episodes like Careers in Wind Energy, WPA goes around to the Nation's K 12 schools to promote wind energy workforce development and pushes its Wind for Schools project to implement wind-energy curricula.

While it's hard to understand why taxpayer monies are funding WPA, it's downright impossible to find out how they are funding WPA. The last time WPA was mentioned in an appropriation bill was in 2003 in a conference report approving level funding at $3.1 million. In fact, we couldn't find funding figures more recent than 2008, when an Energy Department budget request confirmed it to be $5.5 million. After that, WPA falls into the bureaucratic abyss. This amendment would not only put an end to this federalized wind-advocacy program, it would end the practice of blindly funding it.

This amendment is anything but tilting at windmills. Congress ought to make a point to not oversee how much we spend, but how we spend it. We can do just that by eliminating the Wind Powering America project.

I urge support for the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

I rise to thank the gentleman and express a lot of shock here. But I appreciate the fine work the gentleman does on this legislation.

Again, this program is advocacy for a proven technology. After 13 years of this program, to spend more--and we really don't understand how much each year, but it could be $5.5 million--for people in the Federal Government, on taxpayer dollars, to go and advocate on behalf of wind energy. All of us receive visits frequently from people in the wind industry who have proven technology, who are out there already deploying it. Why in the world we should continue to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars to advocate for these programs, I just don't know.

So I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, for supporting the amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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

I have a motion at the desk.

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

This motion is simple: it simply ensures that the minimum rate of return for any State under any new highway reauthorization is 95 percent.

As I'm sure everyone is aware, every gallon of gas sold in your State provides money to the highway trust fund via the Federal gas tax. Trust fund money is then dispersed back to the States using very complex mathematical formulas that are determined with each surface transportation reauthorization. A reoccurring issue is the debate surrounding Federal transportation policy. It's been the historic disparity by which a number of States have received less back in funding than they have invested in the highway trust fund through the gas tax. For years, these donor States have fought for more equity and a higher minimum rate of return to ensure that they recoup as large a slice of their own gas tax dollars as possible.

This motion would increase the minimum rate of return to 95 percent, as passed in the Senate-MAP 21 bill. With the influx of general fund moneys to backfill the highway trust fund over the past couple of years, this donor/donee State issue has been a bit blurred, but the issue going forward can't be ignored.

This is not a partisan issue, I should mention. It's simply an issue of fairness. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion and just tell the conferees to not agree to anything that gives States less than 95 cents on the dollar for what they pay in. As we know, for years and years, there's been this disparity. States like Arizona, California, Texas, and Florida, are donor States. Under SAFETEA-LU, the minimum rate of return is just 92 cents. These are growing States. Why in the world are we giving a dollar and getting 92 cents back?

This disparity has existed for a long time for a number of reasons. One of the primary reasons has been the existence of earmarks along the way whereby Members of donor State delegations were convinced to go ahead and accept a lower rate of return for their State in exchange for moneys to spend however they wanted with regard to earmarks. And that has not been a good trade for most donor States.

When you add up all the Members of the House of Representatives who represent donor States, it's over 300. So we can all ban together as donor States and say we're not going to sign off on anything that gives us less than 95 cents on the dollar.

Now we all recognize there are reasons why certain States with very small populations and very big infrastructure needs might receive more than the dollar that they put in. But there is no excuse to, in perpetuity, treat States like Arizona and others to a smaller rate of return year after year after year.

It is simply not right. This is simply telling the conferees, agree at least to what the Senate is doing. I should note that we're going to conference in the House with the extension of SAFETEA-LU which is 92 cents on the dollar. We're saying just take it up to 95.

So that's what this motion is about. I would urge my colleagues to agree to it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

It is an amusing discussion what is a side issue or a theoretical issue with no practical application. Sounds just like someone who comes from a State that receives more than a dollar for the dollar they kick in, and that's exactly the case here. It may seem like a side issue or a theoretical issue to somebody else, but it is a very real issue if you come from a donor State.

I suppose by the same argument, when I got here, I think the rate of return was 89 cents. We managed to get it up to 92. That hasn't been theoretical. That's very real dollars that come back to a State that put more in than they are getting back.

So you can strip away everything you just heard and realize that the argument to keep the disparity going is coming from someone who comes from a donee State, a State that is receiving more than they're putting in.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, because we are backfilling, that line is blurred. Everybody is getting back more than they kicked in because the general fund is kicking it in. That won't always be the case; that better not always be the case. We can't afford for that to always be the case.

So when we go back to the highway trust fund used as it was intended to be used, then it's not theoretical at all for a donor State to require--and the gentleman keeps mentioning get a dollar for dollar. We aren't saying a dollar for dollar, we're saying 95 cents on the dollar.

Now, the gentleman says what's the purpose of the Federal Government? Many of us have introduced legislation to say that what should be sent to Washington should be what is required to maintain the interstate highway system, the purpose for which the gas tax was put in place to begin with. But 18 cents a gallon doesn't need to be sent back because so much of it is sent simply by formula back to the States. And when it does come back to the States, it's encumbered with things like Davis- Beacon requirements, other set-asides, mandates and stipulations that drive up the cost of construction projects in every State. And so what was a dollar you sent to Washington spends like about 70 cents once it comes back, and you don't even get that dollar you sent to Washington.

So the gentleman's point about let's refigure how we do this is well taken. And I've introduced legislation, as have several of my colleagues, to do just that, turn back proposals to ensure that, yes, we still send money to Washington to take care of and to refurbish and to replace and to restructure that which is truly interstate. The interstate highway system is a wonderful thing, but to just send it to Washington to be rewarded with only part of it being sent back, and that part of it that is sent back encumbered with so many stipulations and mandates that it spends a lot less than a dollar isn't right. So the gentleman makes a good point, and I hope that he would join with many of us in the legislation to do just that.

In the meantime, let's at least send a signal to the conferees. We all know that these motions to instruct are not binding. All they are is a signal from the House to act in a certain way when you get into conference. What we're saying here, and I think the message should be from the more than 300 Members of this body who represent donor States, is let's be treated a little more fairly here. That's all we're asking.

So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

I think we are talking in circles here. The bottom line is those who are receiving more than dollar for dollar, once the general fund revenue is not supplanting or supplementing what is taken in by the gas tax, those who are

receiving more than a dollar are going to argue to keep the current disparity in place. But those of us who represent donor States are going to want a better return. That's the bottom line. That's what this argument is about.

And so the more than 300 Members who represent donor States who will be coming to this floor soon to vote on this motion, that's all they need to remember: let's send a signal to the conferees to give us a better shake and to treat us more fairly.

The gentleman mentions our decaying infrastructure and whatever else around the country, and it is abysmal to look and see what's happening. But you've got to understand from the perspective of a Representative of taxpayers from Arizona who are receiving only 92 cents on the dollar that they kick in, why in the world would they tell me, their Representative, yeah, go raise the Federal gas tax, we enjoy getting 92 cents on the dollar and we'd like to get less of that. Instead, if Arizona was to impose an additional--raise their own gas tax, they get to keep dollar for dollar everything. Plus, it's not encumbered with Davis-Bacon requirements and all the other set-asides which raise the cost of construction projects.

And so if the gentleman is wondering why there is resistance around the country to raising the Federal gas tax, that's it. People look at this disparity and say: Why should we continue to do that? We're funding somebody else, or we're funding these inequities. So this is what this boils down to: if you're from a donor State, then you're going to be saying, hey, let's instruct the conferees to give us a better deal than we've had.

Ninety-two is better than the 89 we were getting a while ago, but let's at least take it to 95. That's pretty reasonable here. That's all we're asking with this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Again, we're having an argument from somebody who represents a State that's getting a lot more than they kick in, and that's the bottom line. To relate this highway user fee, and it's not a pure user fee because we're kicking money back in from the general fund. But it was meant to be a user fee. To relate that to funding for the arts or whatever is completely an apples and oranges argument. And the notion that because one State receives more in agriculture subsidies than another, some of us don't like those subsidies at all, and we can have that argument on another day.

But we're talking about the highway trust fund here. It's a trust fund that is theoretically supposed to give the States roughly what they put in. Now, like I said, I haven't made the argument at all that every State gets 100 percent of what they put in. The gentleman may have made that argument, but I haven't. What I'm saying is right now the minimum guarantee is 92 cents on the dollar. Can't we just get it to 95? Is that unreasonable?

If the gentleman says that the whole concept of this Federal union is that States share, I understand that, but does that mean that one State should only get 10 percent of what it kicks in? Of course not.

There's a figure at which, a point at which some States, like my own, say, you know, we've been getting 89 cents or 92 cents for decades here. At some point, let's do a little better. And Arizona's not the only State that feels that way.

So again, I would ask those of us who are coming to vote on this later on, check with your offices if you aren't aware and say, Are we a donor State or not?

Is there a minimum guarantee, 92 cents? Isn't it reasonable that that

should be brought up to 95 cents? Is it reasonable for a State, in perpetuity, to be shorted like that? And I don't think it is.

I don't think there's any constitutional justification or theoretic justification or anything. It's just an issue of fairness here. That's all we're asking.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to yield back as soon as the gentleman is.

This has been an interesting discussion. It went about how I thought it would.

Those of us who are donor States want a little fairer shake. That's all we're asking. So, to those coming to the floor, check and see where your State falls. You'll find that most of you coming to the floor to vote are from a donor State, a State that's giving more than it's getting. All we're asking for is a fairer shake here. We're not looking to solve all the world's problems in all other areas. There are a lot of other formulas that should be changed as well, but right now we're dealing with this one. Let's ensure that those who fill up their cars and spend 18 cents every time they put a gallon in get a little more of that back. That's what this is about.

I urge the adoption of the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is straightforward. It would reduce funding for the Office of the Secretary by $50,000 and transfer a revenue neutral amount to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection salaries and expenses.

This is a nominal cut from the Secretary's nearly $122 million in funding, again only slightly more than the committee provided for the Secretary to spend on receptions this year. I offer this amendment as a means of bringing up an important issue both to Congress and to the Secretary's attention.

Let me start by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for their attention to border issues in this bill, as well as the staff's assistance in bringing this amendment to the floor. In the report accompanying last year's Homeland Security appropriations bill, the committee directed the Department to provide a ``resource allocation and staffing model for ports of entry.'' As would appear to be the trend with congressional requests for information, answers to these questions or budget documentation were never provided. The Department either failed to prioritize or simply ignored the request.

The committee report notes:

As the committee has not yet received the CBP workload

staffing allocation model, the committee cannot assess CBP's

identified needs.

As we are all no doubt aware, funding for border security efforts between the

ports of entry has increased exponentially over recent years--and justifiably so--while the budget for Customs and Border Patrol officers at the ports has not kept pace.

When I travel on the border region, there are often concerns raised at that point that there is insufficient staffing at the ports. Those serving at the ports of entry have a dual role. They have to facilitate commerce across the border and prevent unauthorized people from crossing the border.

I could talk at length about the benefits of cross-border trade for communities along the border, but let me cite just a couple of examples. Focusing on the southern border, Mexico is the third-largest U.S. trading partner and the second-largest U.S. export market, with a reported 6 million U.S. jobs depending on trade with Mexico.

The executive director of the Arizona-Mexico Commission was recently quoted saying:

Arizona's border is the gateway for some $26 billion worth

of imports and exports and some 44 million people each year.

A recent Maricopa Association of Governments release cited that legal Mexican visitors spend roughly $7.3 million a day in Arizona, and Arizona businesses exported nearly $6 billion in goods in 2011. So there are benefits all over for trade of this type.

The Mariposa port of entry in Nogales is one of the largest ports of entry for fruits and vegetables in the U.S. In 2011, the U.S. imported 13.4 billion pounds of fresh produce grown in Mexico, and more than a third of that entered through Nogales.

To summarize, we have to have better staffing at these ports. The Department has been asked to provide us with their needs and they simply won't. We simply haven't been able to get that information.

I'm the last member of the Appropriations Committee that would support writing a blank check to any department, but we have got to make sure that these needs are met, and that's why this amendment is critical, and I am grateful to the chairman and ranking minority member for working with me on it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 2.

I apologize that my objecting to the reading took longer than the reading, but we will try to get through this quickly.

This amendment is straightforward and would simply reduce the amount appropriated for State and local programs in the bill by $412 million, making the amount available for the Homeland Security grants consistent with FY 2012 levels. I understand that some

of these are popular programs, and I'm under no illusions about the prospect of this amendment.

But I also understand that these programs were cut heavily last year within the fiscal year 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill, but it was reported out of the committee with $1.3 billion cut from the previous year and a funding level $2.8 billion less than the President's request.

By comparison, this $412 million cut looks a bit chintzy. There are good reasons for this. Setting aside the steep financial precipice that we find ourselves on, and we're still on, there are some problems with these programs that led to them being cut last year. According to the House appropriations report from 2012:

``These reductions are due to the persistent lack of quantifiable metrics that measure the additional capability that our Nation has gained for the billions of dollars that have been invested'' in these grant programs.

In other words, we don't have good metrics actually to determine if this money is being spent well or not.

The report continues:

``Based on the latest estimates, the Department currently has almost $13 billion in previously appropriated funds that remain unspent dating back to FY 2005. This level of unexpended balances is unacceptable.''

That's what the report reads.

Mr. Chairman, the House Committee on Appropriations approved this bill and the report which accompanies it just less than 1 year ago. When it did, it appropriated only $1 billion for these programs.

While the conference report increased that to $1.34 billion today, we are preparing to approve a bill that appropriates more than 750,000 more than the House thought appropriate last year.

These programs, I should mention, were heavily criticized last year, and here we are with this massive increase. What dent has been made in the $13 billion in unspent funds that existed less than 1 year ago? The criticisms levied by the House against these programs have been echoed by GAO as well.

In 2009 GAO found that:

``FEMA's assessments do not provide a means to measure the effective UASI region's projects that they have had on building regional preparedness capabilities, which is the goal of the program. Taxpayers have footed the bill for tens of billions of dollars in grants to States and localities with no clear way of telling how the money has improved readiness or national security. In fact, it remains difficult for any Member of Congress to even know what these funds are being spent on.''

We've got to do better than this. When we don't get good reports back as to how the money is being spent, how can we ensure that additional monies like this are going to be spent in an appropriate manner?

I'm certain that my colleagues want to ensure that money is spent well. That's why I think we should simply forego spending this additional amount. That's what this amendment is intended to do. This amendment would simply reduce the amount appropriated by $412 million, making it level with 2012 funding levels.

Again, we have got to start cutting spending somewhere, and when we increase spending on programs like this, where we don't get good information from the Agencies that spend it as to whether or not it's doing the good that it was intended to do, then I say this is an area that we should cut.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4348.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Flake moves that the managers on the part of the House

at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses

on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed

to recede from disagreement with the provision contained in

the matter proposed to be inserted as section 104(c)(1)(B) of

title 23, United States Code, by section 1105 of the Senate

amendment that reads as follows: ``for each State, the amount

of combined apportionments for the programs shall not be less

than 95 percent of the estimated tax payments attributable to

highway users in the State paid into the Highway Trust Fund

(other than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent

fiscal year for which data are available''.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed hearing this, and I would say, if the gentleman from New York, if what he were saying were correct, he would be right and I think all of us would vote for this amendment. But he's not. He's not right.

The amendment, the language he seeks to strike does not forbid or prohibit the use of PLAs. You don't have to take my word for it. I was the author of the amendment, and we expressly did it so as not to prohibit or allow or anything. It would simply be neutral.

And this is what CRS said. So you can say all you want about motives or anything else, but this is what CRS said. They wrote back to us and said:

Based on the plain language of the amendment's text, PLAs

for military construction projects would not be forbidden.

Again, ``would not be forbidden.'' It is expressly--let me read that again so I'll be clear.

Based on the plain language of the amendment's text, PLAs

for military construction projects would not be forbidden, as

it expressly provides that ``[n]one of the funds made

available by this act may be used by any government authority

. . . to require or prohibit . . . bidders . . . to enter

into . . . agreements with one or more labor organizations.''

Here we have it. It's neutral. That's what we're intending to do. The problem is what we sought to correct with the amendment in committee was when the President issued this executive order. The executive order, in itself, does not expressly prohibit nonunion organizations or shops from getting a contract. But what Federal agencies have interpreted it as meaning is that they should favor PLAs. And so certain Federal agencies have written guidance, based on the President's executive order, that actually favor PLAs. And that's wrong.

And so all the amendment seeks to do is put it back on neutral ground, to keep the thumb of the President or this body or Republicans or Democrats or anybody off the scale in this regard. That's what this language that the gentleman is seeking to strike does. It brings neutrality that has been missing after the President's executive order.

Again, when the President issued his executive order, some Federal agencies took that to mean that they would have to or could require the use of PLAs, and that means that the thumb is placed on the scale in favor of PLAs. So this language was drafted to make it neutral again. That's what it does.

If this amendment here is adopted, it will put a thumb back on the scale, and we can't have that. So you can say all you want about motives, what they really want to do, or this is a back door or whatever. But if you look at the amendment, again, from CRS, not from

me, says that it doesn't require or prohibit, so it's neutral.

I will yield first to the gentleman from Washington, but only briefly.

Reclaiming my time.

No. There's an important word there, ``mandatory.'' It wouldn't allow the mandatory use. It's back to neutrality.

That's what you just read.

I'm not sure if they know what they're interpreting then. But CRS, which looks at this, says it's neutral, so make no mistake----

If they spoke to the agency----

We don't have to because the agencies have issued guidance that we can look at where they have interpreted the President's executive order as to require the use of PLAs. That's why we offered the amendment.

No, it doesn't.

It simply takes the thumb off the scale that's there right now because these agencies have issued guidance. Now, you can say that the agencies may take this as a thumb on the other side of the scale.

Nobody can control what they're doing. But this language simply makes it neutral, and that's what I'm trying to correct here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Wherever they make sense, that's fine. I just don't want a finger on the scale either way.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to say first that the gentleman mentioned that he thought that this bill had been written by the Associated Builders and Contractors. That's not the case. This issue was first brought to my attention after a meeting my office had with the Army Corps of Engineers. So a government agency brought it to our attention.

Second, we are trying to bring back the same neutrality that existed during the Bush administration, which was before this President put the finger on the scale. During the Bush administration, during that 8 years in which we had the neutrality like this amendment of mine returns to, there were contracts awarded with project labor agreements and there were contracts awarded without them. That's what neutrality does. Where it makes sense to use a PLA, it's used. When it doesn't make sense, it isn't. It's neutrality. That's what this bill returns to. That's why this amendment should be rejected.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The reason it's needed, as I mentioned, is because some of the Federal Agencies have taken the President's language in the executive order to mean that they can require or should require PLAs.

Yes, there is.

There is. In fact, there was a project in St. Louis, I will mention one specifically, under the stimulus funds, frankly, and that was a shovel-ready project. But then--and a nonunion shop actually offered the low bid, but was refused the contract because the language that the President issued, or the executive order, was taken to mean that they had to look for a PLA, that they should be encouraged to use

But that's how it has been interpreted. That's why we're saying let's make it clear that we can neither forbid nor deny.