Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor and congratulate the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) as they celebrate their 40th anniversary this Friday, July 25th.

In 1974, Congress established LSC to better ensure equal access to justice under the law. LSC was created with bipartisan support, and the authorizing legislation was signed into law by President Nixon. The goal of the program from the outset has been to ensure access to civil legal assistance to those who are otherwise unable to afford it. LSC does this by distributing federal funding to local legal aid providers who in turn use the funding to address the needs of our constituents. Today, the LSC distributes funding to 134 local providers who have offices in every congressional district in our nation, as well as in the U.S. territories.

The programs make a vital difference in the lives of millions of ordinary Americans each year. Lawyers funded by LSC help families facing unlawful evictions, women seeking protection from abuse, veterans seeking benefits, seniors defending against consumer scams, and mothers seeking child support. In my home town of New York City, LSC funding also provided crucial assistance to low-income individuals who faced problems as a result of Superstorm Sandy and had nowhere else to turn.

For all the good work that LSC-funded programs do, there is still more to be done. LSC funded entities are forced to turn away 50 percent of eligible individuals seeking assistance. This gap, known as the justice gap, shows that we have come a long way, but we must do more to ensure there is adequate funding for LSC and the programs that they serve. As a Member of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to fight to increase funding for this worthy program

Mr. Speaker, justice should not be limited only to those who can afford it. Equal access to our justice system is at the essence of our democracy. Our court system should allow everyone who has a legitimate grievance to pursue justice with the best possible representation. For the past 40 years, LSC and all of its grantees have helped ensure that our nation lives up to these ideals. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating LSC for their good work over the past 40 years.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Dodd-Frank does not designate any entity as too big to fail, as paragraph 1 of the Garrett amendment suggests. Instead, Dodd-Frank provides regulators with the tools to address the risks posed by large, complex, and interconnected financial institutions, both banks and nonbanks alike. This is crucial to addressing one of the main regulatory gaps we witnessed leading up to the 2008 crisis: too many nonbanks were in the shadows and escaped critical regulation that could have prevented the crisis.

The Garrett amendment is an attempt to roll back the critical rules of the road we passed in the wake of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Large financial institutions are fighting the SIFI designation because they know that being identified as SIFI

means being subject to regulation above and beyond current requirements, including living wills that will help regulators plan how to wind down the firms in an orderly fashion in the event they become insolvent.

The heightened regulation also includes the ability for regulators to stress-test the entity to see if it can withstand financial distress, demand more capital, or to demand more stringent reporting.

Former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, a Republican appointee, noted in congressional testimony after the passage of Dodd-Frank that ``many institutions are vigorously lobbying against such a designation'' and that being designated as a SIFI will in no way confer a competitive advantage by anointing an institution as too big to fail.

The capacity to designate nonbanks as SIFIs is critical to the U.S. financial system for appropriate regulatory oversight. The designation process already has in place multiple procedural safeguards and opportunities for appeal via a lengthy process. Therefore, we urge you to oppose the Garrett amendment as not necessary.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

It is amazing. Like President Reagan once said to President Carter in debate, here you go again.

I rise to oppose the amendment. We often hear people running for office rail against politicians who have gone Washington. This amendment is an interesting representation of that phenomenon. We are part of a group of folks here who would like to treat Washington, D.C., as their own little colony. Back home, they tell the world they want no part of Washington, but over here, they not only want part of it, they want to tell her how to act.

This amendment would limit commonsense gun regulation put in place by the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. Under our Constitution, States and localities, including D.C., have the ability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.

Even the Supreme Court has recognized that some level of regulation is necessary in order to uphold those goals. The Republican Party usually stands for states' rights, but not when it comes to the District of Columbia.

Our former colleague, the great David Obey, used to say that if Members of Congress wanted to get involved in the District of Columbia's affairs, then perhaps they should run for the D.C. City Council. That may be an option that the gentleman from Kentucky would like to consider.

I strongly oppose the amendment. I think it continues to be more than just a gun amendment. It is an anti-D.C. amendment, and we should stop this behavior once and for all.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

I would like to first say that we only oppose certain regulations about voting issues when they are meant to suppress the vote.

I would like now to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who--get this--is the only elected Member from Washington, D.C., who is in this Congress at this time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The gentleman may not remember the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, but one of the causes was lax oversight by the previous administration's financial regulators. Dodd-Frank has addressed many of these issues and restored safety and security in the marketplace. It has increased oversight over the financial sector in order to protect those on Main Street from abuses on Wall Street.

This is not the time or place to change that landmark legislation. Any attempt to do so will create greater uncertainty in the marketplace and among many Americans, including retirees, who depend upon Federal regulators to protect them. We should not undermine the much-needed reforms of Dodd-Frank, let alone in an appropriations bill.

This is yet another example of the other side attempting to add legislative riders to must-pass legislation that they could not pass through their regular legislative process. I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I would remind everyone that we continue to find ways to try to undo either the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, which is already law and approved by the Supreme Court, or Dodd-Frank, which is the law of the land. The sad part of it all is that we seem to have very short memories. We seem to forget that we are still suffering from the effects of 2007 and 2008 and what happened in my city on Wall Street and how it had the effect throughout the Nation.

We have to regulate, whether we like it or not. We don't have to overburden industry; we don't have to harm anyone; but we can't allow people to do what they did before, which is hurt the economy and put us in the bind we are still in.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Meehan of Pennsylvania to the end that the amendment stand disposed of by the voice vote thereon.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman form Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is one of those issues that really gets you angry. Both sides believe that people should play by the rules, and what you have are people not playing by the rules. People in my district, people in Ms. DeLauro's district and people in Mr. Crenshaw's district have to pay their taxes and pay their taxes where they live. They don't have the option of doing these kinds of things. For me, it is not only a legislative issue but a personal issue--the fact that these folks continue to get away with this kind of a situation.

This is an issue that Ms. DeLauro has been working on for years. It is one that she deserves a lot of credit for, and that is why we have to thank her for it.

I would like to take this opportunity to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman is seeking to bring the salaries and expense of the courts of appeals, district courts, and other judicial services up to an appropriate level in part, as he mentioned, to address a tragic incident that took place in his district.

It highlights the problems the judiciary suffered while under sequestration and with the lower funding levels that agencies in the executive branch have also had to face.

We will work with the gentleman, the majority, and with the judiciary, as we do every year, to ensure that we can meet their funding needs and address the gentleman's concerns.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this has very little to do with a bowling alley. This is not even about the picture of Richard Nixon fully dressed, bowling at the White House. This is about this desire of Republicans and the Tea Party segment of Republicans, in some cases, to make Barack Obama seem like an illegitimate President.

The legitimacy of his Presidency has been questioned on and on. There were questions about his birthplace. There were questions about what he said his religion was. There were questions about whether he was old enough to be President. There have been questions about everything. So now, these petty attacks continue.

This is a nonissue. This is a nonstarter. First of all, this was about fixing up a bowling alley that has been there forever. I don't think the American public, with all due respect to the people in the gentleman's district, really spend a lot of time concerned about the fact that all Presidents--and I mean all Presidents--are not allowed just to pick up and go to a local place to have a beer or bowl a game of bowling or whatever. So this is not an issue that we should be dealing with.

But what is important about it is that GSA, furthermore, has canceled the project. The Federal contractor posting was pulled on July 9. So I am sure that the other side knows that this no longer is an issue, but it continues to be something that sounds good. I am sure people will be writing about it tonight, that the bowling alley was going to be built at the White House. No. This was an existing one that was going to be refurbished. That contract has been pulled back. That idea has been pulled back.

There just continues to be more and more and more of this petty attack on a President. And I think it is not so

much that he was elected President, which caused a lot of pain for a lot of people, but the fact that he was reelected. That really has turned a lot of people to a point where they will come up with anything.

So by tonight, we may see even the plumbing at the White House attacked, as we did a couple of years ago. And at that time, I remarked that there hadn't been any plumbers at the White House since the Nixon administration, and that was the truth. We have leaks. We have a White House that needs fixing, and this Congress wastes time on these kinds of issues.

So I would just hope that the gentleman would pull his amendment. If he doesn't, then I would hope we could defeat the amendment because it is just silly and not necessary at all.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just in closing, it is silly. And I am not suggesting the gentleman is silly.

We spend money, large amounts of money on the military and on other things that we never, ever, ever attack. We send money overseas in misguided military situations, and we don't complain about that. But it makes good headlines to say that today we stopped the bowling alley from being built at the White House. ``Refurbished'' was the question at hand, and it has been pulled back since July 9. There is no plan whatsoever to do anything with the existing old, decrepit bowling alley at the White House.

So this is not a gutter ball. This is not a strike for anyone. This is just more of their silliness that we will see for the next 24 hours.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of other speakers, so I will be very brief.

This really has very little to do with the substance that we are talking about, or that appears to be marijuana. It is about the fact that, whether we like it or not, there are States that have already legalized either recreational use, in two cases, or medical use in 22 States, and those situations require banking decisions and banking abilities. Jack Lew, Secretary of the Treasury, said at our hearing:

Without any guidance there will be a proliferation of cash-

only businesses, and that would make it impossible to see

when there are actions going on that violate both Federal and

State law.

So an attack on the use of marijuana may be misleading here because what we are doing is really ignoring the banking aspect of this and the fact that there have to be some regulations and some issues put in place to do the right thing and to uphold the law, the banking laws and other laws.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I get tired of saying this, but it has to be said. I realize that the other side's desire is to bring the IRS down to nothing. It is a constitutional question. We have the power to collect taxes. One would argue that we must have a department that collects taxes.

They may not always be the department--the agency--we want them to be. Both sides, whether one believes it or not, were outraged that something wrong might have been done, but to suggest and paint with a broad brush the whole IRS and say that everyone there at the senior level is not worthy of a bonus or not worthy of our respect is really to do a disservice to public service employees. These folks do a job. They do a job on a daily basis.

Are there problems with the IRS? There have always been problems at the IRS. Has the IRS been an agency that is loved by the American public? No, because we as Americans would love somehow to do everything we need to do, but have taxes that are either very low or nonexistent.

That is not a knock on us. We would all rather pay less taxes than we pay, but we continuously just spend time knocking and knocking. If you measure the time that we have spent on this bill so far and you measure how much of that time has been allocated to the IRS and to bringing it down, not to helping it in any way, not to coming up with any solutions--the whole argument has been they did something wrong, we are going to punish them.

We are not talking about children. We are not talking about a foreign government that attacked us. We are talking about an agency that might not have done everything the way we want them to do it, and therefore, we have to use our resources, our power, and our legislative ability to make them do a better job, to help them along the way, not to destroy them.

So here we are saying if you have executives at the higher level that are doing a good job, you can't help them in any way. You have to ignore that.

Now, we talk about morale. We talk about morale with our staff. We talk about morale with our Membership. Why do we have so many Members who are retiring?

If you asked them, a lot of them are retiring because we don't get along the way we used to or maybe because we spend so much time on wasteful issues.

So we can't paint with a brush the whole IRS. We have to find a way to help, to make them a better agency--yes, to use tough love.

Absolutely, I will be the first one to agree to that and to join the majority in doing that, but this whole word of punishing of a worthless institution, of a corrupt institution, of an institution that does not follow the law, that is not true, that is not fair, and that is not correct.

That is why this amendment is misguided, and it may do just the opposite, like so many of these amendments. By punishing, you bring down morale, and you bring down the support of those who could help us do a better job at the IRS like we all would like.

I hoped that we would get Mr. Gosar to withdraw his amendment, but his facial expression tells me that I am crazy in asking that question. You don't have to agree that I am crazy in asking that question, but I think we should defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is primarily concerned with records management at the IRS, which does not surprise us--the IRS again. However, this bill already contains a provision preventing the use of funds by the IRS to violate these very same sections of the code. In other words, the bill that we are debating today, the full bill, already accomplishes what the gentleman seeks to do. Every agency is already required to follow Federal records management law, so this amendment seems particularly unnecessary.

I realize Members on the other side want to continue to issue press releases stating how tough they are on the IRS, but there is no need to restate current law. I think that this one is different in the sense that while other amendments that I may not approve of or support speak to an issue that hasn't been spoken to before or repeat something we have dealt with before, this one speaks to an issue that Mr. Crenshaw already took care of in the bill.

That is my opposition to it, and that is why I think the amendment is unnecessary.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

It also adds a requirement on D.C. that it doesn't add anywhere else. It imposes additional duties by requiring law enforcement or the D.C. Council to determine what is prohibited by Federal law before they are allowed to legislate.

We know that folks like to sound good on certain issues by legislating from here, but the city council should not be asked to incur these extra duties that they don't have now.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I think the mistake we are making here is the one we have been making all day. Not only is it targeted only at the IRS, which seems to be the desire to continue to do this for the next 24 hours or for so long as this bill lasts, but secondly, it paints it with a wide brush. If you say no conferences of this type or if you limit the number of conferences, okay, we could discuss that; but to say that one agency in the Federal Government cannot have any kind of conferences, none at all--zero, nada--that really speaks to just a continuous desire to destroy the IRS.

Now, there were issues concerning the conferences. There were issues concerning the conferences for other agencies. We have dealt with that. We can deal with this. But to say no conferences at all is to suggest that an agency cannot operate the way it needs to at times.

So I think that this is just another attack on the IRS. It makes for good headlines, even at this time of night. I think it is the wrong thing to do, and I would hope that we could oppose it or that the gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment. The only difference here, Mr. Chairman, is that we are not attacking the IRS. Now we are attacking the Financial Services Subcommittee. The fact of life is that this committee took the biggest hit of any subcommittee in the House.

And while I may disagree with how some of the bill came out, I have made it clear to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) that what I disagree with the most are the riders and the allocation. With a different allocation, we would have had a different bill. So to now cut 1 percent from the committee that took the biggest hit is really to just to try to cripple the bill completely, and it serves no purpose other than to be able to say that you cut it.

Now, it would be nice to see if these kinds of things were mean, what happened on the military budget every so often, but we are not going to see that. We are only going to see it on bills like this one, which really services a lot of people. I think that the chairman is right. I join him in opposing this amendment, and I hope that it will be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is really a mean amendment to single out one city, one city that is hurting; to single out labor when, in fact, it is not labor, but it is the people that have those pension plans and now may not have a pension plan, to single them out.

With all due respect to the gentlewoman, I am sure there have been many instances throughout history and in recent years when your area, your State, has been helped by Federal dollars when it was hurting, and we all got together and did that, be it a flood, be it a fire, be it a natural disaster. Whatever it may be, we came together to help. Detroit has its problems, and Detroit might have made some mistakes. But to single it out in an amendment and to say that we cannot help in any way, shape, or form is really mean, mean-spirited and wrong.

It may look good to single an urban center out. It may look good to single out a place that is hurting. But that is not the American way. The American way, I can tell you, as a New Yorker, when New York was hurting, people came to its aid. When we were attacked, we came to its aid.

Sure, this is different, but Detroit, it's hurting right now. And to single it out on this House floor at 10 minutes to 8, at this time, to single it out as not being worthy of Federal help, is really just wrong. And then to take the opportunity to attack organized labor by suggesting that somehow they are to blame and therefore they should not get any help is also mean-spirited.

So I have seen, in the time that I have been here, difficult amendments. But this one is one that really takes the cake. Mr. Chairman, Republicans

have supported bailing out banks and financial institutions that were deemed too large to fail. We were all for saving the auto industry, and I was for it, too. We were all for making sure that big institutions did not fail. And while I questioned it, many of us went along with it. And here to single out Detroit at its worst moment when it is hurting like no city has hurt in a long time is just the wrong thing to do.

If this is what the gentlewoman wants to do, I guess there is no way to stop her, but I would really wish that she would take a moment to think about this before she goes any further with this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve a point of order mainly because we haven't seen this text or the amendment until this very moment. In fact, we still haven't seen it.

First, I wish to withdraw my point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I do have, and I know it comes at a different time, but I do have letters from different groups opposing the amendment from the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, including the gentleman who gets credit for inventing the Internet, and I am not talking about Vice President Gore, I am speaking about someone else.

National League of Cities, National Association of

Counties, National Association of Telecommunications

Officers and Advisors

July 15, 2014.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The National League of Cities (NLC),

the National Association of Counties (NACo), and the National

Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors

(NATOA) strongly urges you to oppose any amendment to HR 5016

that would hamstring the Federal Communications Commission

(FCC) from taking any action on--indeed, even discussing--the

issue of state laws that prohibit or restrict public and

public/private broadband projects. It is clear that such laws

harm both the public and private sectors, stifle economic

growth, prevent the creation or retention of thousands of

jobs, and hamper work force development.

The United States must compete in a global economy in which

affordable access to advanced communications networks is

playing an increasingly significant role. As the FCC noted in

challenging broadband providers and state and municipal

community leaders to come together to develop at least one

gigabit community in all 50 states by 2015: ``The U.S. needs

a critical mass of gigabit communities nationwide so that

innovators can develop next-generation applications and

services that will drive economic growth and global

competitiveness.'' This is especially true in rural America.

The private sector alone cannot enable the United States to

take full advantage of the opportunities that advanced

communications networks can create in virtually every area of

life. As a result, federal, state, and local efforts are

taking place across the Nation to deploy both private and

public broadband infrastructure to stimulate and support

economic development and job creation, especially in

economically distressed areas. But such efforts are being

thwarted in some areas by State laws that prohibit or

restrict municipalities from working with private broadband

providers, or developing themselves, if necessary, the

advanced broadband infrastructure that will stimulate local

businesses development, foster work force retraining, and

boost employment in economically underachieving areas.

Consistent with these expressions of national unity, public

entities across America are ready, willing, and able to do

their share to bring affordable high-capacity broadband

connectivity to all Americans. State barriers to public

broadband are counterproductive to the achievement of these

goals. Efforts to strip funding from the FCC to even discuss

this issue, let alone take action, are misplaced and wrong.

Please oppose any amendment to HR 5016 or any other measure

that could significantly impair community broadband

deployments or public/private partnerships.

Sincerely,

National League of Cities,

National Association of Counties,

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and

Advisors.

Whatever happened to localism or local control? This amendment means the Federal Government will tell every local citizen, mayor, and county council member that they may not act in their own best interests.

Any such amendment is an attack on the rights of individual citizens speaking through their local leaders to determine if their broadband needs are being met.

Congresswoman Blackburn only has to drive an hour and a half down Interstate 24 to Chattanooga to see where the city-owned electric utility owns a broadband network. It charges $70 per month, enough to cover expenses but affordable enough to attract businesses.

Her State passed a bill to prevent nearby towns from joining Chattanooga and to block other communities from doing themselves. Companies have moved jobs or expanded in Chattanooga after learning that the minimum connection speed on the city-owned network was faster than the maximum they had available at headquarters.

Preemption will not force anyone to do anything that the municipalities alone don't want to do. This is not about forcing States to do anything, but instead stopping States from choking grassroots competition and stopping States from blocking faster networks or new networks where none exist.

It may sound one way, but it is a total different interpretation that we have, and this amendment could really hurt--in fact, may even hurt the efforts that she claims she wants to put forth.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that Chairman Upton has legislation and has spoken out on this issue, and the whole issue here is to allow cities to do what they need to do without having the major cable companies and so on lobby the States and stop them from doing so.

Broadband is something that we need to expand--that may sound like a pun--to make it broader, not to make it limited. It should be available everywhere, and it should be available in every possible place--rural, suburban, inner city, in homes, in schools.

We have to build the infrastructure to make that happen. Again, I repeat, I really think that her intent is not being met by her amendment, and that is why I oppose it and hope we would all oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is a contradiction with what the gentlewoman says because, on one hand, she doesn't want government involved in localities, and on the other hand, she wants to tell localities how to act.

On the other hand, she doesn't want us to tell the Consumer Product Safety Commission how to act, so it becomes very confusing. This is an issue we should leave to the discretion of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This is not something we should be micromanaging the CPSC on.

Furthermore, it is a proposed rule, and the CPSC is simply reviewing comments at this stage, and that is important to note. They are simply reviewing comments at this stage. We in this body should let the process of issuing rules play out, as is required in law, instead of cherry-picking where and when we want to interfere.

This is simply not an area of overregulation, since no regulation is yet in effect, so this amendment is unnecessary. I oppose the amendment, and I hope my colleagues will as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this agency is one of the better agencies. Every so often, we read about baby seats and blankets and all kinds of issues that affect our communities and our daily lives.

We should stop trying to attack it, as some people do. I just think that this is not a good amendment and that it should be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I am saddened to have to rise in opposition to this legislation today. As a long-time appropriator, I remember the days when we were always able to come together to determine the funding levels for our government in a bipartisan manner and with little partisan warfare. Unfortunately, this bill is not a product of those times.

I do not say this to blame Chairman Crenshaw or Chairman Rogers, as they have always listened to the concerns that our side has had and have tried to accommodate us when they could. Mr. Crenshaw is a great working partner, and he knows that that famous line is really true in this case: it is not personal; it is about this issue. There are many things we have been able to agree on as a result, but they have also been forced to listen to a portion of their caucus that is not interested in the business of governing, and as a result, the good portions of this bill are overwhelmed by the problems that this legislation has.

Let me discuss just a few of the more serious shortfalls of this bill, starting with a seriously inadequate allocation. This subcommittee received an unacceptably low 302(b) allocation that is $566 million below last year's bill. Percentage wise, this is a cut of 2.6 percent, a level that no other subcommittee has been forced to take. The result is that there are several agencies in this bill that are not funded properly.

Primary among these is the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is funded at $10.95 billion, a cut of $341 million below last year. This means the agency would operate at a level that is below sequestration-- funding levels that were already grossly inadequate. I assume this is being done both as some sort of collective punishment of the Exempt Organizations unit for the problems associated with their scrutiny of liberal and conservative 501(c)(4) organizations, and as one final attempt to hinder the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We already heard from the chairman that they don't think this committee should be involved with the Affordable Care Act. We keep forgetting that it was passed by both Houses, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. These actions are irresponsible, and they do more to hurt the American people than does the IRS. Rather than investing in further training to prevent the problems that happened previously or ensuring that we have the resources to go after tax cheats, the majority has chosen to play politics with the agency that brings in the vast majority of our Nation's revenue. Unfortunately, these funding levels will prevent the agency from collecting money from tax cheats, expand the tax gap, and increase our deficit. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also severely underfunded at a level of $1.4 billion. This is $300 million below the request and is simply insufficient to allow the agency to properly oversee Wall Street and protect investors, including many retirees who have 401(k) and pension plans that are invested in the marketplace. Both parties have created additional responsibilities for the SEC in recent years, but funding has not kept pace. If we keep asking the agency to do more with less, then we cannot be surprised if we experience another financial crisis.

There are numerous other cuts to the bill that are harmful as well, including the elimination of the Election Assistance Commission, cuts to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the General Services Administration, all of which have negative impacts on the operations of our Federal Government and private sector job growth. However, I believe that the biggest impediment to reaching compromise on this bill is the large number of partisan riders that have been added. Let me name just a few of the more excessive, all of which are major concerns to our side of the aisle.

There are riders preventing the IRS from implementing the Affordable Care Act and from reforming the 501(c)(4) regulations, which have caused so much confusion and abuse. There is a rider limiting Americans' ability to travel to Cuba on people-to-people visas.

There is a rider preventing the SEC from requiring publicly-traded companies to disclose their campaign donations to their shareholders, even though there is no indication that the agency has plans to do so.

There is a rider that prevents the provision of abortion services in multistate health plans under the Affordable Care Act.

There are riders preventing the District of Columbia from using its own funds to provide legal abortion services to low-income women and to determine its own local criminal justice laws with regard to marijuana.

This is, by no means, an exhaustive list. The number of riders on this bill seems endless. I have no doubt that we will be asked to add even more to this list during debate on this bill.

Before we do that, I would point out that we have spent a lot of time this year discussing how to ensure a return to regular order in the appropriations process. I would suggest that it is extremely difficult to do so when the majority attempts to pack legislation with a laundry list of partisan priorities.

This is irresponsible governing, at best, and they make a mockery of one of this institution's most important functions, to fund the Federal Government.

When we choose politics over the needs of the American people, we should not be surprised when those same people become cynical about their elected representatives. The appropriations process is not and should not be the place to add every partisan priority that the other side cannot pass through the regular legislative process.

I feel confident that the American people would rather just have us get on with our jobs, instead of rehashing the same arguments over the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and many other issues.

Our side will attempt to remedy some of these defects through the amendment process; although with the inadequate allocation, it will be difficult to do so. Unfortunately, as it is currently written, this is not a bill that I can support.

Before I finish, let me take a moment to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this bill. They have all devoted many hours to creating this bill and report, and I know I speak for all the Members on our side when I say that we are grateful for the hard work that they have put into this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned baseball. I would like to remind folks that we are so committed and dedicated to our job that we are not watching the Home Run Derby right now.

With the way we treat Washington, D.C., you would think we were members of the city council. But I am going to shock everyone by actually yielding 2 minutes of time to the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C. (Ms. Norton), who was elected by the folks from D.C.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to our attention.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Cybersecurity is of critical importance to our national security and our economic security. I look forward to working with you as we move to conference to ensure that the SEC can effectively address cybersecurity issues.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a second in closing to say that Mr. Cohen's comments were very well taken. I think the mistake we make here is that we continue to add riders to this bill, and a lot of riders in the past had to do with Washington, D.C.

Now, as I have said on many occasions, for me, this is more than a legislative issue. It is a personal issue. I was born in Puerto Rico, raised in New York, and at times I haven't been pleased with the relationship and the way Puerto Rico has been treated by this Federal Government.

So I would just hope that, as we go along, people will continue, continue, continue to realize that the District of Columbia has its own folks, its own elected officials at the local level, and they should be able to conduct their own business.

Lastly, we do this because this country that we love so well and this country that I love so well and that we serve on a daily basis should not treat any segment of its citizens in a different way than it treats other people. I realize that we have a constitutional responsibility, but we don't have to misuse that responsibility.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, departmental salaries and expenses of Treasury have already been cut by $17.4 million this year as compared to last year. That includes the departmental offices account. That means that this portion of the bill is 4.4 percent below what the administration requested.

Mr. Chairman, there is no need to cut it any further. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. The IRS has already been cut overall by $341 million from last year's funding level. This will prevent the IRS from going after tax cheats and helping those who are attempting to obey the law.

The Taxpayer Advocate has even said that insufficient funding of the IRS is one of the most serious problems facing taxpayers. This underfunding will force the IRS to operate with 9,500 fewer staff, which means that less than 50 percent of taxpayers who reach out to the IRS for assistance on the telephone help line will be able to get it, while waiting times for those who do get answers will rise to 35 minutes or longer.

As many as 24 million taxpayers would be unable to reach the IRS for assistance. That is unacceptable.

The cuts in this bill will also result in $2 billion in uncollected revenue compared to what could have been collected at the requested level, thereby increasing the deficit by that amount.

Take as contrast funding at more than $1.6 million above last year's level and over half a million more than was requested. I am not sure what they have done to deserve an increase that they didn't even ask for.

During our hearing, it became clear that the IG didn't fairly represent the findings of its own investigator. Its lead investigator reviewed 5,500 emails and concluded that there was no indication of political motivation, yet the IG failed to mention that until months later after his order was released, and you will certainly not hear Republicans mention it now.

So I am not sure what they are trying to reward, but it certainly is not good work. I oppose this amendment and urge that everyone else do so as well.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

The gentleman says that the IRS has too much money. I haven't done the math totally, but I think if we were to accept every amendment that will come up in the next couple of days against the IRS, we would not only reach zero on the budget for the IRS, we would probably go under and create a crisis that we don't know how to handle.

The enforcement account at IRS has already been cut by $72 million above last year and is more than $421 million below the President's request. The taxpayer service account is already funded above last year's level.

Given the lack of funding for the IRS, there should be no need to plus-up an account that has actually increased while the overall funding for the agency has decreased. That is just a simple statement to understand.

I understand the need to continue to attack the IRS under this belief that they went after just a certain kind of organization. They went after no one. They asked questions of both sides, both conservative groups and liberal groups. I guess we are not going to hear the end of it for the next couple of days. It might be 3 days of bashing the IRS.

So I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, for a minute there, I was almost convinced that they are not after the IRS, but they are even willing to give money to an agency they traditionally do not support just to get at the

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the good news is that the whole bill is not on the IRS, so, eventually, we will move on to something else, and we won't see any more of these attacks.

The IRS has already been cut overall by $341 million from last year's funding level. This will prevent the IRS from going after tax cheats--I know it is repetitious, but it is a fact--and from helping those who are attempting to obey the law. The Taxpayer Advocate has even said that the insufficient funding of the IRS is one of the most serious problems facing taxpayers.

This underfunding will force the IRS to operate with 9,500 fewer staff, which means that less than 50 percent of taxpayers who reach out to the IRS for assistance on the telephone help line will be able to get it, and the waiting times for those who do get answers will rise to 35 minutes or longer. As many as 24 million taxpayers will be unable to reach the IRS for assistance, and that is unacceptable. The cuts in this bill will also result in $2 billion in uncollected revenue compared to what could have been collected at the requested level, thereby increasing the deficit by that amount.

I think what is being missed here tonight with all of these amendments is that, yes, there is a concern on the other side--and there was a concern here also, and there still may be--in terms of what went on and what needs to be straightened out, but the answer is not to cut the IRS down to bare bones, because our next problem will be that the deficit will continue to grow because we won't be able to do the proper collecting of tax dollars in this country.

I oppose this amendment, and I urge that everyone else do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, my early math tells me that, if the amendments that we just passed stick in conference, we have already cut $1.154 billion from enforcement. Those are the folks who are going to collect taxes from people who don't want to pay taxes.

I continue to make my comments--again, sounding repetitious--that there has to be a moment when this stops, when we realize that, yes, there are issues that have to be dealt with at the IRS. There have always been issues that have had to be dealt with at the IRS, but the idea of zeroing out this account and zeroing out the enforcement account just does not make any sense. I would hope that we would just pay attention to that and pay attention to the fact that, while we may have differences with an agency, we have never, ever in the years that I have been here seen anyone, any party or any group, go after a particular agency the way we have gone after the IRS, not only tonight, but in the last few months.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is completely irresponsible and unnecessary.

My colleague may be angry at the Internal Revenue Service, but defunding the very entities that would supply the information he is requesting is not going to get him that information any faster. These offices actually have nothing to do with setting a policy with regard to email retention.

This amendment is simply another attempt to find a conspiracy where the Republican Party has been unable to find one previously.

At this point, the IRS has spent at least $14 million providing hundreds of thousands of pages of information to the committees of jurisdiction here, and, instead of providing them with more money to provide more information, the majority wants to cut the IRS further.

This is not a well-thought-out or responsible amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it because it does exactly the opposite of what my colleague claims it would do.

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

With all due to respect to my colleague, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, when the bill was being written, I recall going to the sponsors of this bill both here and the Senate and saying make sure that this agency is under appropriation supervision, under supervision of the House of Representatives. And I still believe that part of the fiscal crisis which we are still living under was the lack of supervision over the SEC and over the actions of Wall Street. So I am strongly in support of having them answer to us and at least have input from the people's House--from the people's Representatives--to ask them to come before us and tell us what they are doing.

It sounds great for many Members to have an agency be on its own and do the right thing. But past history shows us that when we did that, when we did not supervise, and when we did not have oversight, it did just the opposite.

I am from New York, Mr. Chairman, and I tell you that Wall Street went berserk because we did not pay attention, we did not do oversight, and we did not hold them accountable. So I would hope that we defeat this amendment with all due respect to my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, which is very similar to an amendment I offered in full committee during consideration of this bill.

The bill currently provides $300 million less for the SEC than what the administration has asked for in 2015, and prohibits the SEC from using the reserve fund established by Dodd-Frank for missing critical IT needs, which is, in effect, another $70 million reduction in funding.

At the proposed funding level, the SEC would have to reduce its current staff at the very time they need to be hiring new experts who help protect investors and to fully implement all of the rules and responsibilities required by Dodd-Frank.

Our Nation is still feeling the effect of the complex financial schemes that led to the 2008 financial meltdown. The reforms in Dodd- Frank will help prevent future problems, but the SEC needs adequate funding to carry them out.

This amendment deals with that issue. Ms. Waters' amendment is one that really supplies the strength for creating and for supporting that ``cop on the beat'' that we always mention on the issue of Wall Street. We can't allow that to happen again. The SEC has its responsibility. We continue to cut its funding. And I repeat, I was around when we had the power to do oversight, and we didn't do it, and the agency itself did not do it, and that led to that meltdown which we are still feeling the effects of.

I support your amendment, and I hope everybody else would vote in support of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for the time and the kind comments about my favorite team. I thank the majority party for the opportunity to bring this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very special and emotional day on the island of Puerto Rico and throughout the Puerto Rican community in the United States. This is a tribute long, long, long overdue. If you know the history of our country--and we all do--you know that many groups have been treated unfairly, and many have been treated unfairly during wartime, which is so unfair.

Let me read to you something that I found that is very interesting:

The regiment faced unique challenges due to discrimination

and prejudice, including the humiliation of being ordered to

shave their moustaches ``until such a time as they gave proof

of their manhood,'' being forced to use separate showering

facilities from their non-Hispanic officers, being ordered

not to speak Spanish under penalty of court-martial, flawed

personal rotation policies based on ethnic and organizational

prejudices, and a catastrophic shortage of trained

noncommissioned officers.

Yet most of them were volunteers, if not all. Yet they fought with great valor. Yet they knew that they were very much a part of this Nation.

So today, in awarding this Congressional Gold Medal, we are not just repairing a mistake of the past, but we are also paying tribute to ourselves as a nation. Our Nation is great in many ways. And one of the things that makes this Nation great is that we have made mistakes in the past, but every so often we look back and try to correct them.

Under House rules, we are not allowed to point people out in the gallery; but it is important to note that to my right, there are members of the Borinqueneers, as the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi) said, including one who is 96 years old and is still here with us. God bless him.

And these folks bring so much glory to our community. I remember growing up in New York, where I grew up. I came at the age of 6. My parents--my uncles, my father, who had all served in the military, would speak about the 65th Infantry Regiment, 65 de Infanteria, as something so special. It was a moment of glory on Saturday afternoons during a few drinks and a good roast pork or something and rice and beans to discuss a lot of the achievements in music and sports, but also the achievements of the 65th Infantry were always a part of that conversation because they had endured so much, not to mention the fact--and this may sound funny, but remember, they came from a tropical island and went on to suffer some of the most severe cold weather you could on the battlefields with less equipment, I am told and history books will show, than other soldiers. So, you see, today we honor them.

But today we honor ourselves. We here, in a bipartisan fashion, agree on one thing all the time, and that is, whether you agree on military action or not, when they come home, they should be taken care of properly, and when they are on the battlefield, they be treated equally.

Those days have passed. The Borinqueneers were the last segregated unit in this country. We no longer have that, thank God. We now fight as one nation, indivisible, undivided under God.

So I thank both sides, and I thank especially my brother from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi) for this initiative and Mr. Medina, who have crossed the country.

I will tell you how important this is. The National Puerto Rican Parade, which is being held this year on June 8, which is the largest ethnic parade of its kind in the U.S., has made this one of its top three priorities, the awarding of this medal. Little do they know that we beat them to the punch. And while they will be asking for the medal to be passed, hopefully by 6:30, 7 o'clock tonight, we will have passed it in the House, and it will be worked on in the Senate, which I don't think will be very difficult to do.

As one who had a very simple military career in the Army--where did they send a Puerto Rican? They sent me to Alaska. Luckily, I grew up in New York, so I was able to adapt to that cold.

But this is a wonderful day, a glorious day. And without pointing to them in the gallery, we thank the Borinqueneers for their service and for their patriotism to this country and for honoring Puerto Rico the way they have.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and admiration that I stand before you today to honor Mr. Michele ``Mike'' Greco for his more than 60 years of outstanding commitment to The Bronx and to my congressional district. Michele, better known as Mike, has consistently been a commendable contributor to The Bronx community, and stands as a living example of true commitment, citizenship, and good service to the community.

Michele Greco left the small town of Mendicino in Calabria, Italy in 1949, and immigrated to the Arthur Avenue section of The Bronx. While not a native member of the community, Mike has grown to embody all of the best characteristics of our community, and I am proud to call him a colleague in service, and even more proud to call him a friend.

Mike has grown to be an invaluable member of the community whose dedication to the neighborhood can be seen through all facets of his work.

Today, at 85 years young, Mike's commitment is shown through his opening of The Bronx's favorite neighborhood deli, Mike's Deli. For New York City residents, having a neighborhood staple open for business day in and day out serves as a steady reminder that there is always someone in our community here to help, and for many people, that someone is Mike.

Mike Greco has dedicated himself to promoting his neighborhood's rich Italian heritage, and to tirelessly demonstrating his love for The Bronx and all it has to offer. Most importantly, this gentleman serves as an outstanding example of how one person's lifelong work can leave such a permanent mark in the hearts and minds of so many.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring Mike Greco for his remarkable dedication to improving The Bronx, and sharing its wonders with visitors and residents alike.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize the 217th anniversary of the forcible transfer of the Garifuna people from St. Vincent to Central America, which is to be observed on April 12, 2014. Each year this day serves as an important reminder of the rich history and heritage that is an intrinsic part of this community, and of the history of the United States. This commemoration is the culmination of Garifuna-American Heritage Month, which celebrates the important and unique contributions of the Garifuna community to my home borough of the Bronx, to New York City, and to our nation as a whole.

The Garifuna community has a unique heritage, language, and culture. As descendents of West African slaves, Venezuelan Caribs and Arawaks, Garifuna community has long been an important part of several nations, including Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Nicaragua. The Garifuna people first arrived in New York City in the 1930s as part of the merchant marines, and their numbers quickly grew in several neighborhoods. The Garifuna people are now a long established part of the fabric of New York City, and of my district in the Bronx. Today, I am proud to be able to pay tribute to their history and their future.

Mr. Speaker, Garifuna-American Heritage Month celebrates the unique cultural contributions and ethnic pride this community has provided to the melting pot that is New York City. I am confident that this month will continue to exist as an important cultural landmark celebration for many years to come. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the significance of April 12th in the history of the Garifuna people, and in recognizing their contributions to New York City and to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the contributions and efforts of Ms. Gloria Cruz, a resident of the Bronx and an advocate for reducing gun violence by enacting sensible gun safety laws. Since 2005, she has served as the Bronx President of the Million Mom March, and she has been tireless in her advocacy for the children, and all residents, of the Bronx. After 9 years of incredible effort, she will be stepping back from her volunteer duties.

Ms. Cruz's forceful advocacy over the years has been in honor of her niece, who sadly, was a victim of gun violence. Naiesha Pearson was killed in the Bronx at the age of 10 by a stray bullet--her life cut short in an instant by a senseless act of violence. This tragedy shocked everyone in our community, but for Gloria, it was a call to action.

Since that time, she has been a leading voice in our borough and state for stronger gun laws. Ms. Cruz established Bronx chapter for New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, and organized an annual Bronx Million Mom March. She has tirelessly worked to get illegal guns off our streets, to increase background checks, and to create safe neighborhoods for our children. She has comforted the families of other victims of gun violence, and stood by law enforcement in their efforts to reduce gun crimes. The breadth and depth of her advocacy work has been truly amazing.

Last year, I had the honor to invite Ms. Cruz as my guest to the President's State of the Union address. During the speech, the President eloquently and passionately outlined the need for common sense improvements to our nation's gun control laws. For many years, Gloria Cruz has brought that same message to both the Bronx and to New York City.

Mr. Speaker, through her work, Ms. Cruz has been an inspiration and mentor to many, and a comfort to those who have lost loved ones as a result of gun violence. She has truly honored Naiesha's memory in all of her work. I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Gloria Cruz for all that she has done to help make the Bronx a safer place for our children.

Mr. Speaker, as the Nation readies to observe the 50th Anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I rise today to honor Mr. Bernel Arthur Richardson. Born in St. Croix, Mr. Richardson has been an activist, resident, lecturer, consultant, and economic development leader in Bronx County since 1969.

As an active member of the Civil Rights movement, Mr. Richardson understood the vital need to end the economic and political inequities facing the African-American community. After graduating from Howard University, Mr. Richardson began working alongside many of the South Bronx's renowned transformative figures to develop programs and initiatives that would create new economic opportunities for South Bronx residents.

Mr. Richardson started his public sector career in 1970 when he was appointed by Bronx Borough President Robert B. Abrams to sit as a member of the Community 3 Planning Board. His successes as a member of the Planning Board led him to become a part of the Mayor's Violence Against Women Task Force and to be asked to serve as a consultant on several citywide anti-poverty programs. He recently stepped down as Chairman of the Board at the Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation but is still very active as the Executive Director of the Black United Leadership of the Bronx.

Mr. Richardson has served as a leader in my borough for many years and has helped make the Bronx a better place through his tireless efforts. As I reflect on the more than four decades of Mr. Richardson's public service to the residents of the Bronx and to the constituents of the 15th Congressional District, it fills me with hope that today's young African American leaders have mentors in the community to look to for guidance as they continue to champion social justice issues in our neighborhoods.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all my colleagues join me in recognizing the past, present, and future accomplishments of Mr. Bernel Richardson.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Black History Month and to recognize the important contributions made by African- Americans to my congressional district in The Bronx. African-Americans have made countless contributions to and sacrifices for this great nation, and nowhere is this more visible than in New York City.

As the Representative of the Fifteenth Congressional District of New York, I have had the opportunity and pleasure to get a firsthand account of the work and contributions of Ms. O'Cynthia Williams to our community, and I am proud to recognize her hard work and dedication to The Bronx.

Known throughout New York City as a champion for education equity, Ms. Williams has dedicated her professional life to developing reforms and initiatives that improve the quality of education at New York City's public schools. As a mother of six New York City Public School educated children, she has very keen understanding of what a quality public school education is.

As a Parent Leader & Organizer with the New York City Coalition for Educational Justice, and a founding member of the United Parents of Highbridge, Ms. Williams has dedicated countless hours to traveling across New York City and educating parents on the importance of parent engagement, parent leadership development training, and how to make principals and teacher more accountable.

Last year, Ms. Williams won an important victory for a neighborhood in my district. While working alongside the United Parents of Highbridge, her dream of establishing Highbridge's first middle school came to fruition. The Highbridge Green School, the Bronx's first ``green'' school, opened its door at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. For the first time in the history of this part of my district, the young men and women of Highbridge will no longer have to travel across several neighborhoods in order to get to their middle school. And Ms. Williams played a vital role in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in recognizing Ms. O'Cynthia Williams, an important advocate for a better future for children in The Bronx and throughout New York City.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Black History Month this year, I am honored to reflect on the everyday contributions African- Americans have within my district in Bronx County.

Creating sustainable change within the environmental justice movement is a daunting task that takes years of consistency, perseverance, and support. I would like to pay homage to the Bronx's premier leader in environmental justice, Ms. Kellie Terry. For more than a decade she has committed countless hours towards ensuring the South Bronx is free from harmful environmental elements and factors. Her work and her dedication to helping others has improved the lives of many of my constituents.

A native of The Bronx's Highbridge neighborhood, Kellie has always demonstrated a deep commitment to helping others. That commitment began early, as indicated by her participation in the ``Take Charge Be Somebody'' youth group, and her graduation with honors from the College of the Holy Cross. Since that time, Kellie has been devoted to public service.

As the Executive Director of THE POINT Community Development Corporation, Kellie has established a culture of leadership development that goes beyond the traditional youth development program. THE POINT is a non-profit organization dedicated to youth development and the cultural and economic revitalization of the Hunts Point section of the South Bronx. The young men and women who work and participate at THE POINT learn how culture, the environment, food, and economics all play a critical role in transforming their neighborhood.

Kellie Terry's leadership has been recognized by The Bronx Chamber of Commerce, El Diario/La Prensa NY, and the New York City Council. She is currently the Board Chair of The New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, the Board Chair of The Bronx River Alliance, and is a candidate for a Masters Degree in Urban and Regional Planning at Pratt Institute.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Kellie Terry for her selfless, dutiful commitment to the residents of Hunts Point, and for her tireless efforts in making The Bronx a place that is more livable for all residents.

I thank the gentlewoman from New York, Ranking Member Lowey, for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. As ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee, I wanted to discuss many of the improvements we made to that section of the bill.

Before I begin, I want to thank Chairmen Rogers and Crenshaw and Ranking Member Lowey for their hard work and diligence throughout this process. I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who spent time away from their families during the holiday season to work out a compromise that I think both sides can support.

My colleagues know that the sequester put the appropriations process under an unworkable financial strain, and this legislation helps fix that problem.

The Financial Services section of this bill is funded at $21.8 billion, which is more than $1.5 billion above last year's sequester level and almost $5 billion higher than what was approved by the committee last summer.

With this increased funding, this subcommittee was able to resolve many of the most urgent funding problems created by the sequester. We kept Postal Service 6-day delivery, restored funding for the Election Assistance Commission, and included additional funding for numerous priorities of the District of Columbia.

This bill also removes many harmful riders, riders that would have impacted the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and riders that would have affected the ability of both the SEC and the IRS to do their jobs properly.

This is not a perfect bill, but on balance, it is a good bill. I intend to vote in favor of it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I want to take a second to bid an early farewell to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and also to thank Chairman Wolf and to thank Ranking Member Fattah for allowing language in their bill which was asked for by the President, which was, at times, a little hanging on the ropes, language that would allow, for the first time in 115 years, the people of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to vote on their political future. I thank them personally for that, and I stand ready to vote for this bill as soon as it comes up for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and admiration that I stand before you today to honor Mr. Rafael Pineda, who will retire as the lead news anchor for Univision 41 on December 20th. For 42 years Mr. Pineda has been a key voice in providing the Latino community in the New York area with unparalleled news coverage.

Since his 1972 undertaking as the lead news anchor at WXTV Univision 41, Mr. Pineda has consistently demonstrated a zest for journalism that is balanced, and offers fair, universal access to all audiences. In 1988 he became host of, ``Punto y Aparte,'' the first Spanish language first local interview program in the tri-state area. Over the last several years he has consistently guided Noticias 41 to first place in New York's Spanish language newscasts.

Rafael Pineda has served as an ongoing inspiration for all Latinos by building one of the most distinguished careers in television. Mr. Pineda was the first local news anchor to interview major political figures like President Clinton, and influential celebrities like the late Desi Arnaz. In the year 2000, he was the first Latino to be honored in the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Silver Circle, and over the years he has won several awards, including an Emmy. Most recently, Mr. Pineda was inducted into The New York Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame.

Mr. Pineda has developed a career that has paralleled my own in regard to public service, and as a colleague, I have been consistently inspired by both his integrity and his unwavering sense of dedication to his audience and to the news. Over the years, I have appeared on his program many times, both in interviews with Mr. Pineda and in news stories concerning legislative issues. I always found that Mr. Pineda was tough but fair in the questions he asked and the issues considered. Regardless of the subject, or his own personal views, he always had the best interests of his audience in mind. After 42 years of service Mr. Pineda has grown to embody all of the best characteristics of the New York area, and I am proud to call him a colleague and a friend. He is an invaluable member of the community whose dedication to the people can be seen in all his work throughout the years, and whose on-air presence will certainly be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring Rafael Pineda as an Emmy award winner, as New York's longest-serving news anchor in history, and most importantly, as an outstanding example of how one person's lifelong work can leave such a permanent mark in the hearts and minds of many.

I thank the gentleman. And you are correct. You stuffed my first line.

I live a few blocks away from Yankee Stadium, and so, for a Yankee fan to honor a Red Sox fan shows the kind of love and respect that I have for him. I don't know if I will survive or be able to sleep tonight, but I will say congratulations, Barry, on the Red Sox winning the World Series.

You notice that didn't come out too well, but it is not that easy.

Barry Sullivan. When I first came here and I found out that Barry Sullivan was running the Cloakroom, I expected to see Barry Sullivan, the movie star of the 1940s in the black-and-white movies. Instead, I found a class act and a person who really cared about the membership. And that is what is important, that he always took care of the membership.

One of the things that always amazed me about Barry was his ability to put up with us. After all, how many times does a person get to answer the same question 200 times in a row to the same people?

When are we getting out tonight, Barry?

When do you think votes will end?

Do I have time to go to dinner?

Well, Mr. Serrano, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and he would do it. And then you would show up and you would show up and he would do it. By the third time, I would have told everybody to come in the Cloakroom and I will make one speech to everybody, and then you can all get out of here and leave me alone. But there was always that ability for him to understand the needs we had, the information we needed, and the fact that he provided that for us.

But he also had a sense of humor. I gave him a hard time for so long. I have been here 23 years, and I had running lines with him. One of them, walking into the Cloakroom, was, Are the Red Sox still in the league? That was one of the ones. The other one was, What is the loudest noise in September? And he would actually go along with it and say, What? I would say, The Red Sox falling apart. And this went on and on and on.

But through it all, Barry, you showed more than just being a sports fan, you showed that you were a class human being, that you were a person who cared, a person who cared in terms of how we got here. I think you, as much as anyone else, understood that none of us get appointed here, that we have to go beg in front of a Legion hall or in front of a subway station or in front of a supermarket for a vote, and you understood that, and that is how you treated us, and that is how I think we treated you.

You were the one who told us if there were peanuts coming to that basket in front of you when we were looking for peanuts or chocolate or whatever. You were the person who made sure everything ran well, and I am going to miss you. I am really going to miss you, because I think you are one of the classiest acts around here. I hope you stay in touch. And I will just end this way. We have in Spanish--and I will apologize to the stenographer, and I will translate it later.

We have a saying in Spanish: Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres.

(English translation of the above statement is as follows:)

Tell me who you walk with and I will tell you who you are.

We walk with you. We are you. Let's hope that we have learned from you how to be as classy and as humane as you have been for so many years.

Thank you, Barry.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I will strongly support this bill tonight because it not only opens our government but it enables us to meet our obligations in a proper way.

But if we walk away from this tonight without having learned a lesson, this would have all been a futile exercise. The lesson that we have to learn is that we can become obsessed with one issue and close down a government over one issue.

When a bill becomes a law and gets signed by a President, gets judged on and approved by the Supreme Court, that is the law of the land. We have to abide by that. We should in no way continue to act as if things really didn't happen--only what is happening now happened.

Secondly, we need to understand that there are no winners or losers tonight. The real losers are only the American people, who had to put up with this situation for these past weeks. If we go away tonight not learning that lesson--that we cannot allow that to happen again--it would have been a waste of time.

So I hope that we move ahead on the budget commission, that we move ahead on that conference, and that we move ahead in a joint way, in a two-party system, to work on behalf of the American people.