Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, in 2009, the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund was established in order to help Pakistan build its counterinsurgency capabilities. The bill before us reauthorizes the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund through the year 2013 and contains a special oversight requirement which conditions the use of more than 10 percent of any money appropriated to the fund until the Secretaries of Defense and State submit an updated report reflecting current conditions in Pakistan to Congress. That report will include details on how much money is to be used, metrics for success, a description of Pakistan's efforts to combat terrorist organizations inside the country, and it will have rigorous oversight provisions. I commend the Committee on Armed Services for continuing to do this important oversight.

But the way the law is written, access to 100 percent of the funds appropriated for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund would be granted as soon as that report is submitted, leaving no time for Congress to actually review the report before these funds are obligated. I'm concerned that this report will simply be submitted to Congress, and it will be perfunctory in nature--the report is issued and, boom, the funds are gone before Congress has a chance to actually look at it. This amendment would simply add a requirement that once the Secretaries of Defense and State submit their report, a period of 30 days has to elapse before the money can be fully utilized. The 30-day period will give Congress time to actually review the report and, more importantly, it will give us the option to prevent the expenditure of further funds if necessary.

This last year has shown the tumultuous relationship that we have with Pakistan. Particularly, it's been more strained since the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan just over a year ago. Congress needs this flexibility to better manage the flow of U.S. taxpayer dollars to a country whose support of the U.S. has been anything but consistent. This amendment simply gives Congress that flexibility.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the Bartlett-Flake amendment.

Let me just clear something up if I can. What has happened is the President issued an executive order where he encouraged the Federal Agencies to--where they can and where appropriate--employ PLAs. That might seem fine. The problem is some of the Federal Agencies have taken that to mean that they should require PLAs, and some of them have issued guidance to that effect. So they've taken what the President said and taken it one step further.

What we're trying to do here is simply say that you cannot favor PLAs, nor can you prohibit them, and that the Federal Agencies will be neutral in this regard. To say that it would prohibit the use of PLAs is simply not true. We're simply trying to keep the President or the Federal Agencies from putting their finger on the scale in favor of PLAs or against them. That's what this amendment does, and I'm proud to support it.

Let me just say that this amendment was offered in the Appropriations Committee yesterday in the Military Construction bill, and it was passed by a voice vote. There is a recognition that the President has-- unwittingly or not--put his finger on the scale in favor of PLAs or union shops, and that's just not fair. The President and the Agencies ought to be neutral in this regard.

PLAs might make sense; they might not. What we ought to do is ensure that the taxpayer gets the biggest bang for the buck. That's the purpose of this amendment, and that's why I support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for including in this en bloc amendment an amendment that I and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) offered to ensure that we budget honestly.

We have something called the Overseas Contingency Operations Account, or OCO, and this we fear is sometimes used to put in items that we don't want to become part of the budget, that are above the budget, or outside of the budget. This amendment will ensure that those items in this account are war related and not simply items to get around budget constraints in the budget that we've established for defense.

I thank the gentleman for putting this in. This is an important amendment. We've got to ensure that we budget honestly, and then make sure in the future we know what our budget is, and we know what accounts are doing. This is a good step in that direction.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funding for President Obama's SelectUSA Initiative. It's a program that would otherwise receive just over $6 million in this bill.

Now, if you've never heard of SelectUSA, you're not alone. Virtually nobody has heard of it outside of the committee and those who are funding it.

Last June, President Obama issued an Executive order to establish SelectUSA. It was called the first-ever Federal effort to attract, retain, and expand business investment in the United States.

It seems to me that whenever a new Federal program is touted as the first of its kind, it's usually a pretty good indication that it's completely unnecessary. This is no exception to the rule.

A quick read of the vague ways in which SelectUSA says it serves the firms and economic development organizations certainly proves that-- promoting the benefits of investing in the U.S.A., responding to inquiries about the U.S. business climate, helping investors confused by regulatory processes, offering guidance--these are hardly the responsibilities of the Federal Government.

In reality, it seems that the taxpayers are buying little more than a Web site pitching the benefits of U.S. subsidiaries to foreign companies. It includes 10 pages of links to Federal subsidized programs like Grants.gov, AARP-E, and the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program. That was the program responsible for Solyndra. Only the Federal Government could find a way to waste taxpayer dollars promoting the waste of taxpayer dollars.

Figuring out what SelectUSA does is one thing; deciphering its actual accomplishments is downright impossible. The Web site includes testimonials from companies like Rolls-Royce and Ikea, of plans to invest and develop in the U.S. These companies already do. This SelectUSA isn't helping them any more than it is helping anyone else. All the announcements are dated between 2006 and 2010, long before this program was even established. So these companies are touting the benefits of a program that wasn't even established yet; how do they know?

Hours of research by our staff uncovered only one investment that's even tied to SelectUSA, and those claims are very dubious. There's a company that's called AGS, and the President has touted this in his program as being

responsible for luring AGS to the U.S. It's mentioned in conjunction with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and other local agencies, and it recently elected to invest more than $20 million in new U.S. manufacturing capabilities. SelectUSA, described as an Obama- launched program, is said to have facilitated coordination between AGS and local officials. But if you look at AGS, AGS has been in this country for more than 40 years, just under a different name. It was called A.G. Simpson Automotive. It's been in business, as I said, with General Motors and Ford for more than 40 years. That company has been a manufacturing presence in the U.S. since it opened a Michigan plant in 1991. Another plant was opened in Louisiana in 2003. This hardly sounds like a company that needed SelectUSA to help it discover the benefits of investing in the U.S.

There is simply no record of this investment outside of the administration press release and the Commerce Department blog post--not from AGS, not from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, not even from SelectUSA. Only an administration press release touts the involvement of SelectUSA.

Most telling of all, the 2013 Commerce Department budget justification to Congress--which requested $12 million and 20 additional full-time employees--doesn't even include a word about the AGS investment. So what does SelectUSA even do? Well, I think the committee isn't even sure what SelectUSA does because the report language in this bill asks SelectUSA to justify what it does and explain what it does because apparently nobody even knows. Yet we took the request from the administration of $12 million and simply cut it in half and gave them half of what they requested.

Why in the world are we doing this? At what point are we going to say we can't afford to throw money away like this? Congress didn't even create this program. It was just the administration who thought it up and now is trying to justify it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would simply submit that when the committee has to ask in report language, please justify and tell us what you're doing, it's a pretty good indication that we don't know and that the program is frivolous and we're wasting money with it.

So, right here, SelectUSA, let me read from the committee report: ``The committee recommends $6.125 million for SelectUSA initiative, which is $3.425 million more than the fiscal year 2012 level and $6.125 million less than the request''--like I said, simply cut the request in half. ``The ITA redirected $2.7 million in FY 2012''--on and on and on. It says:

No later than November 30, 2013, the Secretary shall report

on the location and type of assistance provided, the State to

which firms sought to relocate and why, as well as the number

of foreign firms that actually decided to locate in the

United States as a result of the SelectUSA process.

I would submit that if we didn't know this by now, why in the world are we giving them 6.125 million more dollars? We're running a deficit of $1.3 trillion, and we're frittering away money like this when we don't even know what they're doing.

Let me simply say that when we don't know what they're doing and the only justification comes from the administration that a company called AGS, that has already been investing in this country for more than 40 years, that needs no help in deciding or having a matchmaker pair them with U.S. firms--in fact, this is a Canadian firm investing in the U.S. They actually received trade adjustment assistance during a downturn when employees were laid off from a Canadian company in the U.S. I would submit that if a company knows how to milk the U.S. taxpayer for that, a foreign company, they know how to invest here. They know it pretty well. We've advertised it. In fact, what this Web site of this SelectUSA does is tell them the benefits they can receive if they're here--often subsidies like this.

So I would just submit, Mr. Chairman, we've got to start somewhere, and this ought to be it. I can't stress enough how we've got to start cutting some spending. This is a great place to start.

With that, I urge adoption of the amendment and thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 3.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the National Science Foundation from using taxpayer dollars to fund political science research.

To be clear, my amendment does not reduce funding for the NSF. Earlier in consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment that would reduce NSF funding. This amendment is simply oriented toward ensuring, at the least, that the NSF does not waste taxpayer dollars on a meritless program.

The Nation is closing in on a $16 trillion debt; deficit, more than $1.3 trillion. Nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed. Congress can either continue funding unnecessary programs like someone is printing cash in the basement, or we can face facts that there simply isn't enough money to go around.

Now, I stand here today and I'll defend responsible Federal spending on matters of Federal responsibility. Among other things, Congress ought to ensure funding for strong national defense, a secure border.

There are things, however, given the economic realities, that Congress ought to reconsider funding on the back of future generations. Just remember, every dollar we're spending in discretionary spending this year, we are borrowing from our kids and our grandkids.

Let me simply say I can think of few finer examples to cut than the National Science Foundation's Political Science Program. According to the NSF Web site, to date, more than $80 million has been awarded to the program's nearly 200 active projects. Three-quarters of these awards, totaling over $46 million, were directed to universities with endowments greater than $1 billion.

Again, three-quarters of these awards under this program for political science research, totaling over $46 million, were directed to universities that have endowments greater than $1 billion.

Think about it. Three out of the four of the grants awarded by the NSF Political Science Program go to the wealthiest universities in the country. Would those who would oppose this amendment have believed that Harvard and Yale would have to close their political science departments if Federal grants are not available for this program? Of course not. These universities and the field of political science will be just fine.

However, my greatest concern is not who received these funds, but how they are spent. Every dollar Congress spends is money we don't have, as I mentioned.

So what kind of research is NSF charging to our credit card? $700,000 to develop a new model for international climate change analysis; $600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do.

Let me say that again: $600,000 here spent trying to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do. I think we can answer that question in about 5 minutes when we vote on this amendment because I can tell you, people out there want us to quit funding projects like this.

$301,000 to study gender and political ambition among high school and college students; $200,000 to study to determine why political candidates make vague statements. $200,000 to study why political candidates make vague statements. That's what we're paying for here.

These studies might satisfy the curiosities of a few academics, but I seriously doubt society will benefit from them. How can we justify this outcome?

Now, I hold a graduate degree in political science myself. I agree that such research has its benefits. The work of political scientists advances the knowledge and understanding of citizenship and government, politics, and this shouldn't be minimized. But they shouldn't be subsidized by the National Science Foundation.

We can't continue to spend money like this. I urge adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say, and I won't take all the time, but there is something to the ``laugh factor.'' At some point we've got to realize here that the country's watching us, and they're looking to see if we're funding programs like $600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do? $200,000 to study why political candidates make vague statements?

We're funding this with taxpayer dollars. The acid test ought to be for all of us, whenever we're spending money here, is this program worth borrowing money from our kids and our grandkids, from some countries, that don't like us very much who are buying our bonds?

And this doesn't pass that test. It doesn't even come close. And if we simply say this is a big NSF budget and this is a very small part of this, this program, if we continue to say that, we'll never cut it, and that's the problem here. We aren't.

The NSF funding, overall, is way up from the post-stimulus level. We said at the time that the stimulus was passed that that's just a one- time deal, and these rates will come down, or these programs will come down. They haven't. We're continuing to fund

them. And programs like this, the country just looks around and says, this is laughable. Look at what our policymakers are doing.

Again, I would say that we will find out the question, the $600,000 question, as to whether or not policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do, by how we vote on this amendment right now.

I move to strike the last word.

To the gentleman's point, the minority whip, I think all of us want to protect the ADA and the goals of the ADA. That's why this amendment was offered in the committee. It was to strike this language.

What will happen--I think we can all see it--is if these new regulations are allowed to go into effect--at the end of this month, I believe, it will come--there isn't the equipment even available to put it into use. The liability issues are so huge to have a stanchion, basically, with a lift at every pool and a power source right by the water, in every body of water. If there is a resort with 10 pools, 10 lifts. If there are three Jacuzzis, three more lifts. If it's an apartment complex with a small, little pool, they'll still have to do it. Municipalities that have public pools will have to do that as well. What will happen is too many of them will say, We can't expose ourselves to the cost or the liability, and so we'll simply close our pools.

Whether they be military or anyone else, what does that do to access for the disabled? What good is it if a pool is closed down because the owner simply can't deal with the cost or the liability? I guarantee you, if this happens, if this goes into effect, then you're just going to be granting waivers based on some kind of spoil system or on whether or not they think they can afford it. It's just not workable. What we need is a workable regulation.

I yield to the gentleman from New York for a very brief time.

In reclaiming my time, it's all well and good to say that; but what these owners will say is their liability comes as soon as the lawyer walks by and the pool doesn't have it. They're not going to risk having the liability. They're not going to risk doing that. So you'll have less access because it's simply not ready. Having this go into effect in less than a month from now, at the end of this month, is simply not reasonable.

What we're about is trying to find a solution that is reasonable and affordable and that will increase accessibility for the disabled. This doesn't do it. That's why the amendment was offered in the committee. It was to take this back and have something reasonable.

All of us have the same goal here; but the regulations, as they're put forward, are not reasonable. Think about that for a minute: a small apartment complex that has a pool open to the public and then imposing that kind of cost and liability on them. Even with the equipment, when it does become available, it's more likely that they will simply shut the pool down because they won't want to deal with that liability. We have resorts in Arizona that have had portable lifts available for years and years. Some of them inform us that they've never been asked once--or one time in 10 years.

There are ways to do this. It's reasonable and prudent to say you ought to have a portable lift available; but a fixed stanchion, or a lift, for every body of water? It just is unreasonable and too costly. So that's why the amendment was offered, and that's why the language is in this bill. I would urge that it be retained.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would return National Science Foundation funding to its pre-stimulus level, and it would save the taxpayers about $1.2 billion.

Just before voting against the stimulus bill a while ago, I stood in this same Chamber and stated what I thought was pretty obvious at that time: that the only thing that this stimulus bill would stimulate is more spending later, and I think we have found that to be the case.

Leave it to the NSF, an agency that doles out billions of dollars testing theories, to prove me right on this.

In the 4 years leading up to the stimulus bill, funding for the NSF averaged more than $5.7 billion. That's not exactly a drop in the bucket, even by Washington standards. By comparison, in the 4 years since the stimulus bill passed, NSF average spending has climbed 31 percent to a staggering $7.6 billion.

For whatever reason, rather than draw down from this inflated level, Congress appears content to maintain it. The bill before us today funds the NSF at $7.3 billion for fiscal year 2013. That's $300 million more than last year.

While I acknowledge that the NSF does some noble work, it also has drawn its fair share of criticism. Notably, there was a recent investigation by our colleague in the Senate, Senator Tom Coburn. He identified $3 billion in mismanagement by the agency. The report uncovered a lot of highly questionable research projects that would be laughable if the taxpayers weren't paying the tab. Just a few of them here:

$755,000 to find out how rumors start. Again, $755,000 to find out how rumors start;

$315,000 to answer if playing FarmVille on Facebook helps people make friends;

And then there's the infamous $559,000 for a project to have shrimp run on a treadmill.

To me, that hardly sounds like justification to give the NSF more money. Rather, Congress ought to make the necessary commonsense cuts to programs like the NSF that have been far too long bloated from the stimulus legislation.

This amendment would employ a reasonable approach to do that. It would simply reduce NSF funding to the highest pre-stimulus level of $6 billion. This would save the taxpayers, again, more than $1 billion.

I think we have to remember that this discretionary budget that we are dealing with this year, we'll do 12 appropriation bills for somewhere just over $1 trillion. Our deficit is more than that, meaning that everything we consider in our process this year, the appropriations process, is money we are borrowing from our kids and our grandkids. When that is the case, I think that we need to be a little more prudent about the programs that we increase funding for. I don't think there's a justification to increase funding for the National Science Foundation this year.

And when you look back to 2008, which is where this would bring us back to if this amendment passes, as I said before, that wasn't the year where ``Grapes of Wrath'' music was exactly playing in the background. That was a year that we spent a lot of money. But we're spending more now, even given the current deficit that we're running and the current debt that we've piled up.

So I would urge support for the passage of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

This amendment is straightforward. It would require the inspector general of the intelligence community to include a list of federal agencies and departments receiving information shared with the government in the report already required by the underlying legislation.

This act is an important piece of legislation that will help private entities and utilities protect themselves from catastrophic attacks to their networks by creating the authority for private entities and utilities to voluntarily share information pertaining to cyberattacks with the Federal Government and vice versa.

H.R. 3523 avoids placing costly mandates on private industry and the creation of a new regulatory structure. That's what I really appreciate about this legislation, as I'm sure everyone does--it's voluntary.

As with any new intelligence program, however, it's incumbent on us to make sure robust protections exist to safeguard privacy rights. The inspector general report required under H.R. 3523 will provide a thorough review of the information shared under these new authorities and will address any impacts such sharing has on privacy and civil liberties. Adding the list of the departments and agencies that were recipients of this shared information, as my amendment would do, would add information on which government agencies exactly are receiving shared information. Such information will further mitigate the risk of abuse to privacy rights and increase the effectiveness of the inspector general's report.

I commend my colleagues from Michigan and Maryland. They've been working hard to put together this bipartisan measure, working up until the very last minute to ensure that Members' concerns are addressed, and I believe that this is an important piece of legislation.

I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Michigan such time as he may consume.

I just want to say I support the legislation in the underlying bill, and I would urge support for this amendment as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this provision to get construction of Keystone XL pipeline underway.

For months, Members from both sides of the aisle have worked tirelessly to impress upon the Administration the urgent need for the Keystone XL pipeline project to proceed.

The justification for Keystone as a safe and critical boon to private sector job creation and American energy security has not changed. This project will still create thousands of jobs. It will still increase the nation's capacity to transport crude oil by 830,000 barrels per day; and the State Department is still on record stating that Keystone ``poses little environmental risk'' and will lead to ``no significant impacts to most resources.''

Unfortunately, the Administration's reluctance to proceed with the Keystone XL pipeline has left some other figures unchanged since debate on Keystone began. The unemployment is still above 8 percent. The U.S. still relies on the same sources of foreign energy; and American's are still asking why?

Yet thousands remain out of work because the President refuses to pick up his pen. Americans want more jobs and greater energy security. Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline will help to ensure both. I urge support for this provision.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise in support of the provision in this legislation to get the construction of the Keystone pipeline under way.

For months, Members on both sides of the aisle have worked to impress upon the administration the urgent need for the Keystone XL pipeline

project to proceed. Justification for Keystone as a safe and critical boon to private sector job creation and American energy security has not changed.

This project, as we all know, carries with it thousands of jobs. It will still increase the Nation's capacity to transport crude oil by 830,000 barrels a day; and the State Department is still on record saying that the Keystone ``poses little environmental risk'' and will lead to ``no significant impacts to most resources.''

But, unfortunately, the administration's reluctance to proceed with Keystone has left some that question things on Keystone and some debate to begin. The unemployment rate is still above 8 percent. The U.S. still relies on the same sources of foreign energy, and a lot of Americans are asking why, why in the world can't we get this approved.

I would urge adoption of this provision.

I thank the gentleman.

I have concerns, overall, on the transportation provisions, but this provision is very good, the Keystone provision, and it should remain in.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

I rise in support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act.

I have appreciated the opportunity and have helped with the introduction of legislation that will protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting. I am proud that the Recreational Shooting Protection Act, legislation that I introduced earlier this year, is a critical measure towards protecting the rights of recreational shooters and is included in the bill that we're debating today.

As I stand here, the Bureau of Land Management is actively working to ban recreational shooting in both the Sonoran Desert and Ironwood Forest National Monument in Arizona. That's more than 600,000 acres of taxpayer-supported public lands that, if the administration had its druthers, would be closed to recreational shooting in my State of Arizona alone.

Don't be confused; this isn't just an Arizona issue. In 2010 alone, the agency unilaterally closed more than 400,000 acres across three States to recreational shooting. Just as troubling as the closures themselves is the process by which they're coming about. The mechanism for these closures is just bureaucratic fiat.

Too often, the BLM seems quick to point to the action of some bad actors and just as quick to ignore that many recreational shooting enthusiasts responsibly use their Federal lands and the existing laws already on the books that make disreputable actions illegal already. Whether it's closing a million acres of Federal lands to do mining, investigating costly pollution controls for a new power plant, trying to require costly modifications to pools, or locking up recreational shooting areas, you would think that the administration's arms at some point would get tired from overreaching.

As a remedy in the shooting areas, the Recreational Shooting Protection Act portion of the bill would require congressional approval for existing and future recreational shooting restrictions on BLM- managed national monument lands. It would also direct the BLM to manage national monument lands in a manner that enhances recreational shooting opportunities. I should say that that really is the instructions that the agencies are under now, yet they're continuing to carry forward with these actions.

For generations, the Federal Government has recognized recreational shooting as a traditional and legitimate activity on public lands. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the Western States, like Arizona, where communities are often and literally surrounded by Federal lands.

To be clear, all this provision advocates is an additional layer of supervision and oversight of the process. It does not prevent the closure of BLM lands to recreational shooting, it does not unconditionally reverse existing closures, and it does not grant recreational shooters carte blanche on national monument lands. It also does not authorized any new spending.

I believe the Recreational Shooting Protection Act affords Congress the necessary oversight to prevent unnecessary recreational shooting bans, and I urge its adoption.

Thank you.

I should mention that as a diverse package of critical natural resource bills, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act is poised to protect and enhance opportunities for sportsmen across the Nation. I urge its passage.

Again, I thank the chairman for bringing this forward, and those who've worked on the broader piece of legislation. It's a good piece of legislation. It ought to be passed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

When you're hearing this discussion, you think: When are we actually going to tackle this problem? When are all of us going to concede that not one party is responsible for this debt but that we all are? We were headed toward this fiscal cliff long before the current President took the wheel. Let's face that. I think we have on this side. Yet leadership requires fessing up to it and actually doing something to change it.

This plan doesn't end the Medicare guarantee--arithmetic does. Unless we change something, unless we put it on solvent footing, the guarantee is gone. Medicare will be bankrupt under the current trajectory. So what this plan does is recognize that and say, if you're currently in the plan, if you're currently drawing benefits, the plan shouldn't change for you; but those who are younger than 55 will need a plan that is solvent, that does work over time. So we're not ending that guarantee. The current system ends that guarantee. We're trying to fix it here.

I commend the gentleman for putting so much time into this. I commend the House Republicans for actually coming up and fessing up to the truth that not one party got us into this but that we're in this situation. This is the only budget being presented, along with one other later, the RSC budget, that actually treats this problem seriously, that treats it with the seriousness it deserves, and that actually has a plan to get out of it. So I commend the House Republicans for putting it forward, and I plan to support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it's a bittersweet honor to take the podium during this altogether appropriate recognition of House Parliamentarian John Sullivan upon his retirement. I recognize it as bittersweet because it's truly sad for me--and all of us--to see him go, but I'm sure he will enjoy the break from all of us.

I'm certain that tonight we'll hear--and we have already heard--his praises sung, particularly for his esteemed career that spanned some two-and-a-half decades. We saw him rise from counsel to assistant, to deputy, to finally the full-fledged Parliamentarian of this special institution.

I venture to say that few Members or offices outside the Office of the Rules Committee are able to sing his praises having had quite as much experience as my office has had with him. According to a cursory review, it would appear that during Mr. Sullivan's tenure heading up the left side of the Speaker's dais, I've brought to the floor somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple hundred amendments and privileged resolutions and have filed countless more with the Rules Committee. So it is with some experience that I say that both I and my staff have found the Office of the Parliamentarian, under Mr. Sullivan's leadership, to be fair and open, responsive, deliberative, and consistent. In fact, we've come to rely on it.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that what I most admire about John is his irrepressible respect for the House of Representatives as an institution. Partisan politics, heated rhetoric, games of gotcha, finger-pointing and -wagging are as common around here as, well, as common as Flake amendments.

Whether vetting germaneness issues with a provision or two, or being given a few pointers about surviving on a desert island somewhere, I have darkened the door of John's office more than a few times. I can tell you this: when you spend time with John Sullivan, it's easy for your thoughts to turn to the genius of the Founding Fathers, the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, and the beacon of freedom and democracy that the Congress represents. The veneration of this institution just rubs off when you spend any time with John Sullivan.

As James Madison noted in the Federalist Papers: ``Stability in government is essential to national character.'' I can think of no higher compliment to pay John than to say his stable influence in this Chamber has been a credit to our national character.

As a Member of Congress, I thank him both for his service and for ensuring that the House will be more than ably served by those who assume the same responsibility. As a friend, I wish him the best in his next adventure. May it involve a deserted island somewhere in the South Pacific.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the legislation we'll vote on shortly to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This is something that simply should not have been done. These are unelected board members, 15 of them, appointed by the President, tasked for finding savings and making recommendations.

Unfortunately, because of the limitations of what the board can cut, the majority of spending reductions will come from cutting reimbursements for doctors and those who care for Medicare patients. The ultimate result will be fewer options for patients when doctors are driven out of the Medicare system.

We were told when the Affordable Care Act was passed that it would lead to a reduction in premiums. It's done exactly the opposite.

This kind of board and these kinds of decisions made by unelected officials will simply drive the cost up further, and we cannot afford to do that.

My only regret in today's action is that we're not repealing the entire act. I hope that comes soon.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the rule. I like some of the reforms in this bill. There are some reforms that have been overdue and are necessary.

The problem I have is that if this rule waives all points of order against the bill, the bill as I understand it--and nobody can inform me otherwise--is that it violates the Ryan budget, or the so-called House budget, that we passed. We don't know how much. It could be tens of billions, could be just under that, but it seems to violate the budget that we passed. That's why we're having to waive all points of order against the bill, and for that I voice my opposition for the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a milestone in Arizona's history, the centennial of our great State. After nearly 49 years as a U.S. Territory, Arizona became part of the United States on February 14, 1912.

Today Arizona is a bustling, contemporary oasis of more than 6 million people. Its natural wonders--the Grand Canyon, the Petrified Forest, the Red Rocks of Sedona, the Painted Desert, coupled with modern conveniences, most notably air-conditioning--draw millions of visitors from around the world every year. But it wasn't always so.

Early settlers, ranchers, farmers, and miners had to wonder what they'd gotten themselves into. Such was the case with my ancestors. Allow me to tell a sliver of their story because it tells a little about Arizona's history.

William Jordan Flake, my great-great-grandfather arrived in Arizona territory in 1878. When he bought a ranch on the Silver Creek, he was warned by the previous owners not to invite any other families because the land and water would not sustain them. Fortunately, he didn't listen. Soon the town of Snowflake was born, becoming the hub of activity in what was then Arizona territory.

Not long after, William Jordan's son, James Madison Flake, was deputized, along with his brother, Charles Love Flake, to arrest an outlaw who had drifted into town. As they disarmed the outlaw, the outlaw reached into his boot, drew a weapon, and shot Charles in the neck, killing him instantly. James received a bullet in the left ear before returning fire, killing the outlaw.

Just 3 years later, James Madison Flake sat at the bedside of his beloved wife as she passed away, leaving him with nine children. ``Once again I must kiss the sod and face a cloudy future,'' he poignantly wrote in his journal.

But like so many other pioneers who settled Arizona, he not only faced the future, he shaped it. Along with raising these children and many others that would come later, James Madison Flake involved himself politically in the issues of the day. Notably, he tells in his journal of attending numerous meetings and conventions around Arizona and Colorado to promote the cause of women's suffrage. No doubt, he was proud when, just after Statehood in 1912, Arizona became the seventh State to approve the right of women to vote. Just a few years later, the Nation followed with the 19th amendment to the Constitution.

James Madison Flake would be proud to know that Arizona has many women

legislators, has had a number of women Governors, and that the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, is a proud Arizonan. He would surely be proud to know of Gabby Giffords, daughter of Arizona and one of this Nation's enduring symbols of hope, who served this Nation's House of Representatives so ably.

Over the past 100 years, Arizona has been home to a number of colorful and transformative figures: Carl Hayden, Barry Goldwater, Mo Udall, and John McCain.

With so many unsuccessful Presidential candidates, it's often joked that Arizona is the only State where mothers don't tell their children, Some day you can grow up to be President. In fact, mothers get to tell their children something better: You have the privilege of being an Arizonan.

One thing is certain. Because of the hard work and sacrifice of those who have gone before, Arizona's next 100 years promise to be even better than the first because in Arizona, the beauty of the sunset in the evening is only eclipsed by the sunrise in the morning.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. I appreciate that it's a bipartisan piece of legislation.

I lose no sleep at night over whether the President of my party or the other party can take action to send back some spending that we have done here and force Congress to reaffirm it. Had we had that over time, I think we would have saved considerable money. We've had the process here that the chairman of the Budget Committee has mentioned, the process of earmarking over the years. Tens of thousands of earmarks have been proposed by Members of this body unchecked. Oftentimes we would approve one bill with 6,300 earmarks in it. It would be wonderful to have somebody able to send one of those items back and at least force us to spend additional time on that item and to say, do we really want to spend that money or not? It provides some check on this process. We need more checks, not fewer.

Like I said, I think that this is constitutional. It doesn't cede our power of the purse. It simply reconfirms our commitment to control spending, something that we have not had much control of lately as evidenced by the massive deficits that we've run.

So I rise in support of that legislation.