Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today on a motion offered pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Friday, December 24, 2010, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 336, in which case the House shall stand adjourned sine die pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 847, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 in rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment; that the Senate amendment be considered as read; that the motion be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1721 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1721.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1721 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1722.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of November 19, 2010. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.

This is the third time this year that the House has debated and considered this bill. Each of the previous two times, a majority of the Members voted for the bill.

I have often heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak eloquently of how much more efficient the private sector is and about the need for government to take more cues from business. Telecommuting could not be a better example of this. There is no reason that the Federal Government should not make full use of the perpetual advances being made in mobile technologies to ensure that our government's workforce functions as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.

Telework policies are even more important during times of emergency. The Office of Management and Budget, OMB, has estimated that for each day the Federal Government was shut down during the mega-snowstorms that hit the Capital Region last February, we lost $71 million worth of productivity. It is important to point out that OMB also concluded that without employees at some agencies being able to telecommute, the cost of lost productivity would have been easily beyond $100 million.

The Telework Improvements Act will provide a framework to expand the current telecommuting program so that all Federal employees can take advantage of these opportunities.

Telecommuting also helps to reduce traffic congestion. Not only does this save gas and emissions, but it decreases rush-hour traffic for all residents of the D.C. metro area, whether they work for the Federal Government or in the private sector.

In the past, some have argued that telecommuting just allows lazy government employees to sit at home and pretend to work. That's simply not the case. This bill requires agencies to establish a telecommuting policy that authorizes employees to telecommute to the maximum amount possible only to the extent that it doesn't diminish employee performance or agency operations.

The Senate amendments to H.R. 1722 also require agencies to maintain a telework database for various research and reporting requirements, including a confidential hotline and email address to report abuses, and require agencies to submit a summary of abuse reports to the Government Accountability Office, the GAO. These measures will ensure that telecommuting workers are efficient and accountable.

I urge all Members to support the rule and the Senate amendments to H.R. 1722, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I guess, after the last election, I had naively thought that we could come back and get away from the political sniping and focus on governing, but it sounds like that is not the case, and that's unfortunate.

This was a bill that was passed in the House with strong bipartisan support. It certainly was not anything that was political but was something that was needed and necessary. Unfortunately, I think that we are going to continue to hear about politics rather than about governing.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 additional minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to remind my colleagues about the true purpose of this bill, which is to make sure that the Federal Government is taking the steps necessary to increase its ability to function, even in times of national emergencies, because that is what we are here in Congress to do--to make sure that the government continues to function, especially in times of national emergencies.

The bill requires Federal agencies to implement policies and practices to allow employees to telecommute. It requires them to train their employees about how to do their work remotely so that the Federal employees can continue to do their jobs, even if they can't get to work because of a natural disaster or other emergency.

There has been some discussion about the need to police telecommuting employees, so I want to talk about some of the oversight and accountability measures that this legislation contains.

This bill requires the Office of Personnel Management to provide teleworking assistance and guidance to agencies, to maintain a telework database, and to establish various research and reporting requirements.

The bill sets up a confidential hotline and email address to report abuses and requires the OPM to report to the Government Accountability Office about any abuse reports it receives.

Finally, the Senate amendment to H.R. 1722 also requires OPM to consult with the National Archives about how to manage and preserve all records from telework, including Presidential and Vice Presidential records, something that was raised by the Republicans in their motion to recommit back in July.

So, you see that there are oversight measures built into these telework policies. This bill doesn't just say to agencies, ``Send your employees home.'' No. It directs the Federal agencies to set up policies and trainings so that their employees know how to work just as efficiently outside the office as they can at their desks in times of emergency, and those employees know that there is oversight by the agency of the work that is being done.

Those protections are included in this bill, just as they are in the telework policies used by companies in the private sector. That is why this bill makes common sense, because the Federal Government should be adopting policies like this that are commonly used in the private sector to make sure that our government functions efficiently and effectively, even during emergencies that prevent employees from coming into the office.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my friend from North Carolina talks about passage of this bill being a travesty. I couldn't disagree more. The travesty would be if there were a national emergency and we were ill prepared for it because of the fact that we didn't act today, because of something that we could have done that we didn't do. That would be a travesty.

Additionally, the travesty is that she talks about this in political terms, when this is about governing. The days of the politics have to end. The days of governing need to begin. That's what this bill is about. It's about working together, in a bipartisan way, to govern, to make government run more efficiently in a time when we need it most, in a time of emergency. That is the travesty, not to act on it. Not to sit here and talk about the politics of it, but rather to talk about how, together, we can make this work so that government functions better for the people that we represent.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening, this is the third time this year that the House has debated and considered this bill. Each of the previous two times, a majority of members voted for the bill.

When the bill passed the House in July, the Republican motion to recommit was adopted on a bipartisan vote of 303-119. I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are greatly upset that a number of the provisions that were adopted as part of the motion to recommit were removed by the Senate. I understand your frustration. The number of worthy measures that this body has sent to the Senate during this Congress is staggering. However, we must not let that frustration prevent us from sending this bill to the President, because the version of the bill in front of us today will ensure that our government continues to function efficiently and effectively--even during times of national emergency.

For this reason, I urge all members to vote ``yes,'' to avoid the politics, and get back to the governing that this Congress promised to do, vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote ``yes'' on the rule, and vote ``yes'' on the Senate amendment to H.R. 1722.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1674 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1674.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1674 provides for the consideration of three bills in one rule:

H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes controlled by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 20 minutes controlled by the Committee on the Judiciary, and 10 minutes controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule considers as adopted the substitute amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 847, with or without instructions;

H.R. 2378, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act. The rule provides 1 hour for general debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule makes in order the substitute that was adopted by voice vote in the Ways and Means Committee last week. And, finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions; and, three,

The Senate amendment to H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The motion is debatable for 1 hour, controlled by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, all three bills that this rule provides for consideration of are important and very pressing matters. I

will speak to the merits of each this morning, but let me take this opportunity to begin by discussing H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

I want to start by thanking Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Hoyer for their dedication to the heroes and heroines and survivors of 9/11. I would like to thank all my colleagues in the New York delegation. With their support, we will finally do, after 9 years, what has been so long overdue--guarantee help for the survivors who served their country in the time of a national emergency.

The 9/11 attacks were attacks on the United States. The response was a national response, and providing for those heroes who served our Nation is our responsibility because many of them are sick and dying today as a result of their service to our country. This is not a New York bill, no. This is a bill for America.

As has been repeated many times, there are more than 71,000 people enrolled in the Federal World Trade Health Registry from--and I cannot stress this enough--every single State in the country. Thousands of firefighters, rescue workers, first responders, medical personnel, and construction workers traveled to Ground Zero to help search for survivors, to help clean up, and to help New York City recover. Many spent days, weeks, or months doing this hard work on behalf of our Nation. These heroes are now sick. We owe them more than we are currently providing. We are indebted to their service, and we must repay that debt if we hope to be able to count on others to act with similar valor if, God forbid, we were ever to face another national emergency of that nature again.

I strongly urge my colleagues, whether they be Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, northern or southern, eastern or western, to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on the bill. Those who stood up for our country in the wake of 9/11 are now counting on each of us to stand up for them.

Another important measure of this rule allows for the consideration of H.R. 2378, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which is necessary to level the international playing field so that United States manufacturers can fairly compete with our trading partners.

China is, without a doubt, undercutting our Nation's industrial base by devaluing its currency and dumping products into our markets, and we must do something about it.

There is no way our domestic manufacturers can compete globally when our trading partners don't play by the same rules. Without action, we face the possibility of losing thousands of fair wage manufacturing jobs in upstate New York as well as across the Nation.

I have dealt with this countless times with the steel industry and have testified before the House Ways and Means Committee and the International Trade Commission to express my views. It is one of the reasons I became a cosponsor of the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, along with 159 of my House colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, because we feel that countries like China that devalue their currency should be held accountable, and, as a Nation, we should have the ability to defend our domestic business.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2378, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which will require the Department of Commerce to assess whether a Nation's currency rules grant a benefit in terms of the additional currency the country's exporters receive as a result of the undervaluation and to use widely accepted IMF methods for determining the level of undervaluation.

As amended, H.R. 2378 is WTO consistent, because countervailing duties may only be imposed when commerce finds, based on an assessment of all the facts, the WTO criteria for an export subsidy have been met.

Again, I urge all Members to support this rule so that we can have a debate here today on this legislation which is so important to the businesses and employees that each of us represent.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the sponsor of the 9/11 bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend from New York, Representative Weiner.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague from the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I have no additional speakers, and I am ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would like to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, Mr. Diaz- Balart, for his able management of this rule and also to wish him well. This will be the last time that we will be managing a rule together, and I would like to wish him well in the future.

I would like to thank my friends from the other side of the aisle for their impassioned remarks during our debate. But when all is said and done, this rule is about three things, and three things only.

It's about security. It's about the intelligence reauthorization bill of 2010. It's about the economy and the currency manipulation bill. Most of all, it's about doing the right thing. It's about the 9/11 bill and doing the right thing for the people who have been injured.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to allow us to do just that.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln-Diaz Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1674 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill

(H.R. 6225) to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

of 2008 to terminate authority under the Troubled Asset

Relief Program. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or

their respective designees. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman

of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in

recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an

amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the

Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8

of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as

read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not

apply to the consideration of H.R. 6225.

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

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Phillip T. Eastman, who passed away on July 29th of this year.

Mr. Eastman was born on August 2, 1932 and worked on his family's dairy farm as a child. He earned his Bachelor of Science Degree from Cornell University and his Master's Degree from the State University of New York at Albany.

Mr. Eastman honorably served in the United States Army during the Korean War, and upon his return, became a teacher and guidance counselor. He retired in 1989 from the New Hartford School District as the Director of Pupil Personnel Services.

Mr. Eastman was a tremendous asset to his community, as he dedicated his time and effort to helping others. He served as President of the New Hartford School Board, and as a member of my Veterans Advisory Committee. Mr. Eastman volunteered countless hours in assisting my office in evaluating hundreds of applicants for military academy nominations.

Mr. Eastman enjoyed playing golf and working in his wood shop, but he cherished nothing more than spending time with his family, especially at their camp in Cooperstown.

Madam Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in recognizing the great life and contributions of Mr. Phillip T. Eastman. Our country and community is a better place because of Phil's character, kindness and commitment to helping others. He will truly be missed.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in honor of Pathfinder Village, an independent residential community located in my congressional district that has greatly enhanced the lives of individuals with Down syndrome.

On this date, 30 years ago, Pathfinder Village opened its doors, consisting of 7 houses and 1 school, with the purpose of providing a full and productive life for individuals with Down syndrome. This purpose was inspired by the dream and life's work of Pathfinder Village's founder, Marian Mullet.

From its humble beginnings on a 23-acre cornfield, Pathfinder Village has become a vibrant community of 19 buildings located on 187 acres. Today, Pathfinder Village serves as the home of 87 residents, who, because of Pathfinder Village, have the resources and opportunity to achieve their absolute potential and pursue their dreams.

Due to the hard work and dedication of its staff, Pathfinder Village has been tremendously successful in fulfilling the purpose and promise of its founding.

Madam Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in recognizing Pathfinder Village and its staff for its 30 years of service to our community, and for inspiring countless numbers of individuals with Down syndrome by staying true to its motto ``. . . that each life may find meaning.''

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1569 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that this point of order has nothing to do with unfunded mandates. Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying bill. In reality, it is about preventing the bill from moving forward without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation, itself. It is about slamming the door on the legislative process.

I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so that we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Let's stop wasting time on parliamentary roadblocks and get to the debate on this legislation, itself. It is a very important piece of legislation that has critical funding pieces in there for transportation and for housing. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage, but we must consider this rule, and we must pass the bill today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's clear that this point of order has nothing to do with unfunded mandates. My friend from Arizona talks about the inability to make any amendments, and yet he talked about four amendments that he would be offering today. So, clearly, he will have an opportunity to make his points.

Again, I would just say that this point of order has nothing whatsoever to do with unfunded mandates. And I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1569.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1569 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5850, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 2011. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, not to exceed four amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Flake of Arizona or his designee.

All points of order against the amendments except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived. The rule provides that for those amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, the question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the question.

The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The rule provides that after disposition of amendments, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the proponent. The Chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee. Finally, the rule provides the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise as a member of the Rules Committee and also as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in strong support of H.R. 5850, the fiscal year 2011 Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act, because housing and transportation are two areas that must be priorities, especially in tough economic times such as we are in, because we get the double return on our investment. As we have seen with the recovery bill, investment in infrastructure not only generates economic recovery by putting people back to work, but those construction jobs strengthen our transportation system and improve our housing stock. They make our roads safer, our bridges safer for our families and our friends and our constituents to travel on.

The Transportation-HUD appropriations bill continues this investment and our commitment to using all the tools available to continue the economic recovery that has taken hold. It is also important to note that the legislation continues these important programs, but in a fiscally responsible way. Overall, the bill spends $500 million less than was appropriated during the current fiscal year. The amount provided overall is $1.3 billion below the President's request.

I commend the committee for its work in crafting a bill that spends less overall and still manages to increase the funds available for key programs that are at the heart of our Nation's economic recovery. The committee has done so by scaling back spending on other programs, which is never popular or easy, but is the right thing to do.

Included in H.R. 5850 is $45.2 billion to improve and repair our Nation's aging highway infrastructure. The bill includes more than $11.3 billion for the Federal Transit Administration, which will support bus and rail projects, and an estimated 20,000 additional jobs for transit workers nationwide. This not only provides more transportation options to Americans during tough economic times, it also decreases traffic congestion, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions, and makes our roads safer for commuters.

This bill adds another $1.4 billion to continue developing and building a national system of high speed rail. High speed rail moves more people at a lower cost, at a faster speed, and with less impact on our environment than road transportation. We have developed the most advanced highway and aviation systems in the world over the last 60 years, but in comparison to the rail systems in other nations such as Germany, France, and even China, we have clearly fallen behind. This bill continues our commitment to correcting that situation and developing a robust national intercity rail network.

Related to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, H.R. 5850 makes critical investments to help communities continue to address the fallout from the housing and foreclosure crisis that we see nationwide. The bill provides communities with the tools they need to build, purchase, or rent affordable housing. It provides rental assistance to low-income families, homeless veterans, and other at-risk groups, and supplies funding for repairs and renovation of affordable housing across America.

The bill provides $4 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program, which sends funding directly to local governments for projects that address housing, social services, and other economic challenges in their communities.

Madam Speaker, this is just a sample of the important programs and initiatives that the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act will fund in fiscal year 2011. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say thank you to the gentleman from Florida for his handling of this rule. It is always a pleasure to participate in a debate on a rule on the floor with you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Madam Speaker, we heard a lot today. And I think it was very interesting to listen to the debate go back and forth, and certainly from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who talked a great deal about spending. Clearly, spending is one of the most important issues that we are dealing with here in Congress.

In particular, my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Foxx, talked about the fact that it is--I think she said--``the most important issue that faces Congress.''

I would say that it clearly is one of the most important issues that faces Congress, but when you talk to people, when you talk to Americans, they think that the most significant issue that we in Congress need to deal with is the economy--it is jobs; it is putting people back to work, and equally important, it is making sure that the people who do have jobs continue to have jobs.

I think this bill really is indicative of what the Democrats are trying to do. We recognize the fact that it is necessary to begin to make cuts. That is why this bill has cut $500 million from the amount that we spent last year. On the other hand, when you listen to economists, they are very clear in saying that we have to be careful in how quickly and how drastically we make cuts because we are starting to see the economy turn around. If we make draconian cuts and if we make cuts too quickly, it will stand to jeopardize the recovery that is beginning to take hold, that is beginning to take foot.

So I think this bill takes exactly the right approach in terms of beginning to cut but not doing it in such a drastic way that we will affect or detrimentally hurt the recovery that is beginning to take effect. The Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act funds some of the most important initiatives that pay for everything from roads, bridges, and railroads to housing for veterans and low-income families.

In my opening remarks, I discussed the critical investments that this bill makes in our transportation system. The bill also invests in housing programs for vulnerable populations, including retirees, people with disabilities, veterans, and even children.

The funding is even more essential during these very tough economic times. The bill includes funding to address the problem of homelessness among our veterans. All too often, men and women who sacrifice the most for our freedoms are hit the hardest in tough economic times. We owe our veterans the utmost respect and gratitude for their service, and we must honor the commitment made to them. They should not have to return home to be confronted by the possibility of poverty or homelessness.

To address this, H.R. 5850 includes funding for an additional 10,000 vouchers through the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, administrated by HUD, in conjunction with the Veterans Administration.

H.R. 5850 includes another $825 million to rehabilitate and to build new housing for low-income seniors. Currently, there are 10 eligible seniors on waiting lists for each unit of available housing. In America, it is unacceptable that our Greatest Generation is faced with this shortage. HUD's section 202 program is the largest housing program specifically dedicated to serving the elderly, with over 268,000 units for seniors.

Madam Speaker, housing and transportation are two areas that absolutely must be priorities and that are essential during a recovery. The funding that H.R. 5850 provides for these programs will ensure that our economy continues to rebound and that out-of-work Americans are able to find jobs and to afford housing.

Again, I want to stress that the committee has produced a bill that makes critical investments, which I have highlighted, and that it manages to do so while, at the same time, spending $500 million less overall on these agencies during the current fiscal year. During these tough economic times, American families have been forced to cut back and tighten their belts. We need to ensure that the Federal Government and agencies are following their example and doing so well. H.R. 5850 holds the Federal Government to that standard.

I urge my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to support it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 5850, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, which would reduce funding for HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research by nearly $3 million, which is 2.5 percent below the amount currently appropriated in fiscal year 2010.

The Office of Policy Development and Research performs policy analysis, research, surveys, studies and evaluations on housing----

I yield to the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the language that the gentleman from Ohio is referring to was not the language of our amendment, the amendment that I have offered.

I would like to thank the chairman for accepting my amendment. And the only point that I would like to make is that, clearly, the Office of Policy and Development does a very good job, and we want to continue to work. But we felt that our cut was something that would be helpful.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui, for yielding me the time. And I'd like to compliment her on her hard work over the years and her leadership with respect to protecting individuals who have been devastated by the effects of floods which brings us here today.

I speak in support of H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act, which will provide the stability necessary for businesses, realtors, homeowners, and plan effectively to reduce the potential economic loss and costs of repairing damages from future flooding without stifling or preventing otherwise safe development.

As FEMA works to update and modernize flood maps from communities across the country, thousands of families across Upstate New York are facing a new requirement to purchase flood insurance as they are remapped into new flood zone boundaries. It is imperative that these maps are accurate and protect our communities without unnecessarily burdening them or stifling economic development, especially during these very tough economic times.

H.R. 5114 seems to strike the proper balance by allowing property owners a sufficient grace period to account for the need to buy flood insurance or to appeal the determination that their property is within a floodplain, and also phases in flood insurance premium rates over a 5-year period beginning as soon as the property owner initiates the flood insurance policy.

In recent years, I've assisted communities in my district in successfully appealing updated flood maps, saving countless homes and business owners from unnecessarily having to purchase flood insurance.

Instances like this illustrate why the grace period in H.R. 5114 is so important--so property owners have a 5-year delay of the flood insurance purchase requirement within which to appeal FEMA's preliminary determination. This grace period would apply retroactively to any final updated flood map that was enacted since September 1, 2008.

I'm also pleased that H.R. 5114 will create the Office of Flood Insurance Advocate within FEMA to assist policyholders in filing flood insurance claims, settling disputes between policyholders and FEMA, and streamlining the claims process. This is a provision I fought to include in the flood insurance reform legislation in the last Congress, and I applaud the committee for including these provisions in the underlying bill today.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the great State of Maine for yielding me the time.

I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill. However, I

would like to voice my strong opposition to one of the amendments that will be offered later on today, and that is the amendment to strike the second jet fighter engine, for two reasons. One is I think the two things that are most critical for us in considering this bill is, one, obviously the security of our constituents and the people at home and our country; and, secondly, the cost.

On both of these, I think it's very important to note that, one, a second fighter engine gives us a strong sense of security, redundancy, and the insurance that we will have one good engine and that we will have a good backup engine. Secondly, the costs in the long run clearly will show the price will come down if we have competition. It has been demonstrated in the past. It will continue to demonstrate it.

I yield to someone who is much more familiar with that, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).

Congress has supported a competitive acquisition for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine for the last 14 years for good reason. The total program is expected to cost more than $100 billion over the next 30 to 40 years. The Government Accounting Office has concluded that competition between engine suppliers could provide a life-cycle cost savings of over 20 percent.

A competitive F-35 engine program would also reap other benefits such as increased reliability, improved contractor responsiveness, a more robust industrial base, and less chance to ground the entire fleet to fix a problem.

Chairman Andrews and Ranking Member Conaway of the bipartisan House Defense Acquisition Reform Panel have stated that annual engine competition will make both engines better and save taxpayers money--up to $21 billion based on the F-16 experience.

The development of the alternative engine is now nearly 75 percent complete. To pull the plug on this program would forfeit $3 billion in taxpayer funds that have already been spent.

Competition saves taxpayers money. It's been proven to on the other fighter engine program. Why would we write a blank check to a single supplier for 40 years?

Madam Speaker, improving our rail infrastructure isn't just about getting people and goods from here to there faster and more efficiently. It is the heart of regional economic development, connecting communities, businesses, consumers, and producers to foster the kind of economic growth and job creation we as a Nation need.

Our short line railroads are at the center of this, but because the Tax Extenders Act of 2009 has not been enacted into law, they have been unable to plan vital maintenance work this construction season. The section 45G short line railroad tax credit included in this bill generates 6.9 million work hours of rail maintenance-of-way each year-- the equivalent of more than 3,300 full-time jobs nationwide, not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs in America's steel and timber industries that make railroad ties and steel rail.

Our short line railroads are too important to our economic recovery to neglect them any longer. It is time for both the House and the Senate to come

to an agreement so we can put Americans back to work and so we can keep our railroads operating smoothly.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding me this time, and I ask that we enter a colloquy to discuss the Arcuri-Shuler-Davis amendment and the health of the titanium industrial base.

As this bill recognizes, providing high technology equipment to the Department of Defense is a major source of high-paying, high-skilled jobs throughout this country. Although it is easy to think of the industrial base in terms of big aerospace companies, the

real guts of these systems are mostly built by small parts assembly suppliers located throughout this country. I represent a number of those firms in my district.

Congress has long recognized that certain industrial capacities important to the Department of Defense are critical to maintain in this country; among these are the ability to produce titanium parts made from titanium. Section 2533(b) of Title 10 of the United States Code requires the products procured by the Department of Defense which contain titanium must use titanium metal and titanium parts produced in the United States. The law contains a number of exceptions, however, that allow for metal and parts produced overseas to enter the supply chain. I am concerned that the use of these exceptions has expanded far beyond Congress' original intent and may be undermining the law.

I, along with my colleagues Heath Shuler and Geoff Davis, filed an amendment with the Rules Committee requiring the Department of Defense to prepare a report on the impact that these exceptions are having on the domestic industrial base. However, it was brought to our attention that your committee is working on this issue as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 and that this matter will be addressed in a few weeks.

Mr. Chairman, is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.