Floor Statements

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

I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Crenshaw, the Appropriations majority staff, and his personal staff for the professionalism shown during this process. While it is not the bill I would have written, it is the process that I would have followed.

As for the bill, the legislative branch minus the Senate is being cut by 6.4 percent from fiscal year 2011 and 9 percent from fiscal year 2010. These cuts are being done while we had to fix a $13 million hole for the Capitol Police because of their accounting mistake in fiscal year 2010.

I believe these cuts are harmful to our Members' ability to serve their constituents and to the House's responsibility to provide effective oversight.

The budget allocation is what one could expect given the majority is also cutting women and children's nutrition programs, consumer protection, and other important programs in other bills. The only thing this bill has succeeded in doing, however, is joining the other flawed bills by cutting at the expense of jobs, strong oversight, and commonsense efficiencies. Maybe with this bill, the smallest of all 12, and the one that funds our Members' own operations, the majority will see the real-life impacts of these cuts, one of which is not real deficit reduction.

This bill will cut the Library of Congress by 8.5 percent, including a reduction of over 300 employees, 50 of whom will be cut from our much relied-upon Congressional Research Service. Members should ask their staff how often they use CRS staff for research, particularly in responding to questions and concerns from their constituents.

This bill would cut the Government Printing Office by 16 percent, an agency already planning to let go of 330 employees. There is language encouraging the privatization of GPO's activities, which could make it more expensive for Congress to operate.

The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, is cut by 6.4 percent. Every $1 spent at GAO results in $4 in taxpayer savings. This begs the question, is it the majority's priority to not save taxpayers money? Those who claim to want increased oversight of government programs should reject cuts to GAO. They are known as Congress' watchdog, and that watchdog should have teeth.

We have heard that some Members' offices are furloughing staff to meet the 5 percent cut to the Members' Representational Allowance, or MRA, in 2011. Now this bill will further cut MRAs by 6.4 percent. Cuts to the MRA means cuts to Members' day-to-day abilities to effectively represent our and their constituents. From the staff assistant answering calls from our constituents to the caseworker helping Grandma recover her lost Social Security check, all of these services are funded through MRA. Each office would lose on the average of $88,000, which would mean two to three staffers per office.

In what world does laying people off recover the economy? The cut- and-grow mantra does not work in the economy as a whole. It certainly will not work in the corridors of Congress. I hope the Members of this body understand that agencies we rely on will have to deny or severely limit services provided to Members' offices because there are fewer people to handle requests. I would say to my colleagues, remember these cuts the next time you have requests of GAO, the Architect of the Capitol, Congressional Research Service, and the Congressional Budget Office.

Beyond that, after the tragic shooting of our friend and colleague Gabby Giffords in Tucson, we were told to increase security in our district offices. But how are we supposed to pay for all of it? Certainly not out of our office budgets that are being whacked, not from the Capitol Police who are flat-funded, and not from the Sergeant at Arms, whose budget is cut 10 percent.

I have a great deal of respect for Chairman Crenshaw. There are not many things that he could have done differently with the allocation he had to work under. I hope we rethink trying to balance the budget by cutting services to the people who sent us here, our constituents. We can and must do better, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the beautiful State of Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and offer the amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am introducing on behalf of my colleague, Sanford Bishop, would increase the Capitol Police by a modest $1 million for the district office security for Members.

After the shooting of our colleague, Ms. Giffords, the Sergeant-At- Arms and the Capitol Police provided Members with access to security reviews. These reviews and guidelines by the Sergeant-At-Arms provided Members with a litany of equipment and capital improvements that are needed to improve district office security. Even though the recommendations came from our security agencies, Members were left to fund these upgrades through their office budget.

When Members' offices are being cut by more than 10 percent in a year, I'm afraid the strain to continue constituent services will impede any Member's ability to pay for these upgrades. I'm hoping this amendment will be a small step in providing a centralized pot of funds so these upgrades do not go ignored.

The offset is from a lower priority House account that funds transition costs in 2012. It is not a transition year.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

I thank the gentleman.

I really understand that the gentleman from North Carolina is highlighting serious concerns with processes that he sees with the Office of Congressional Ethics, and I share some of his concerns. As well, I share some of the concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts has. It is really raising the question of trying to improve the ethics process in our House and improving the underlying authorization that may be more appropriate, and seeking more appropriate first steps.

I think this may be a situation where we may not be able to support the gentleman's amendment, but at the same time support the issue of improving what it is that he is seeking. I think that the gentleman from Massachusetts would probably be willing to work on that, and I think my friends on the other side would be willing, too.

Reluctantly, while I am not personally in opposition, I think for this portion of the process, I am in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the Joint Economic Committee by 25 percent, or over $1 million. The funding included in the bill for the JEC is already less than the funding level provided to the JEC in fiscal year 2008. The Joint Economic Committee is a bicameral congressional committee composed of 10 Members from each, the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee.

The gentleman does not have an amendment to go after the House Committee, but instead has chosen to go after funding for this joint committee. I hope this isn't an effort to strike funding because this committee is jointly managed with the Senate. The last thing that this Congress needs is less collaboration between the two bodies. We need to continue collaboration.

The main purpose of the JEC is to make a continuing study of matters related to the U.S. economy, and this is exactly the type of analysis Members from both parties and both bodies need as we try to analyze complex economic issues as a Nation.

I oppose this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do so the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

THE CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

The amendment would cut the Office of Compliance by $467,000, even though the office is cut in the underlying bill by 6.4 percent--the same as the overall bill reduction. I have to question the motives of cutting the Office of Compliance disproportionately to the overall bill. Maybe the gentleman is not aware, but this office was established in 1995 by the Republican Congress to satisfy the Republican Contract with America.

The office implements the Congressional Accountability Act to ensure that Congress complies with safety, discrimination, and accessibility laws that everyone else in the Nation must follow. This amendment suggests that Congress should ease up on requirements to provide our workers with a fair and safe working environment.

Therefore, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I just want to disclose the same comments I did in the last paragraph, that this amendment suggests that Congress should ease up on requirements providing our workers with a fair and safe working environment. I don't think we should back off on that.

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

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

While I'm not necessarily opposed to the amendment, I think the record should be clear on the funding level in the bill. To suggest that the $600,000 increase in the Botanic Garden is somehow not needed is simply not true. The funding will be used for painting, electrical upgrades, elevator maintenance, evaporative cooling system upgrades, and the replacement for the vent system used in the plant greenhouse. I applaud the chairman for funding this necessary maintenance work so we do not have more expensive deferred maintenance in the future.

This bill does not fund millions in the maintenance needed by the Architect to sustain and improve our aging national iconic buildings, including the Capitol. However, the chairman found a small amount of funding to try and keep up with the maintenance at the

Botanic Garden, and the Members attack because they can get a good headline in the paper.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I believe that there are other amendments forthcoming. I'm just very concerned about it, and I agree with the chairman in making this funding necessary. I know the Botanic Garden. I enjoy it. And I think that the funding that he has provided is sufficient to push forward the maintenance so that we do not incur a greater maintenance problem in the future.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The chairman of the subcommittee should be applauded for adequately funding the operations and necessary maintenance work so we do not have a more expensive deferred maintenance in the future, which usually is the result.

Now, about cutting and about plants. I think I know a little bit about plants and trees and people behind trees. There is someone behind the tree, and sometimes it's a gardener that doesn't know how to prune it to its proper shape so that it will express itself properly.

The Botanic Garden, let's face it, is a national treasure. It is something that people come to to enjoy. It's a heritage that our forefathers left behind that we should be able to maintain now and for the future. It's a place of respite and contemplation, and God knows that we all need that sometimes.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

My daddy used to say that you should really be careful of zealots because they come in hacking and hewing. I think there are a couple of things that the chairman has pointed out that require some study and thought.

The gentleman who's wanting to do the cutting, he indicated there was a book that was talking about deficits, but that book has been paid by CBO, so it is not a cost of GPO.

And then in terms of security, GPO has the security, but they're required to issue passports, and with passports you have to have security there.

So I think a more studied approach would probably be in place. Cuts for cuts' sake, I think, is, in the words of my father, foolhardy. I would recommend that we slow down and make haste with all deliberate speed, and I agree with my chairman here.

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I figured that I could spend a little time now, since I didn't take it on the last one.

As a Member who represents Silicon Valley, I am supportive of most any effort to move us towards becoming a more paperless Congress. This amendment is easy to support because the Government Printing Office has already taken steps that reduce printed copies of the Congressional Record.

GPO has surveyed the House and Senate for their continuing to print copies of the Record, along with other print documents, like the Federal Register, the first survey of its kind. And for those offices like my own that told GPO that we want to opt out of having the Record delivered to our offices, GPO stopped those deliveries.

I think the gentleman would also be interested in knowing that 68 percent of the costs of producing the Congressional Record is incurred whether copies are printed or not. These are the pre-press costs that are used to create the electronic file which they upload for online and also print.

So while I'm not opposed to reviewing how Congress does its work, including its documents requirement, I believe Members should spend some time getting to know the agency before acting upon it. I think that this move towards a more paperless Congress will start here. It needs to start here with our own practices, and I believe the GPO will accommodate. Again, I support this amendment, as it reinforces steps already taken by our partners at GPO, and I thank our colleague for presenting this.

I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us would prohibit the purchase, acquisition, installation, or use of any medium compact fluorescent lightbulbs. This amendment seeks to rehash the debate on lightbulb efficiency standards we had during the consideration of H.R. 2417, the BULB Act, which failed when it was brought to a vote earlier this month.

The impact of this amendment on this bill goes beyond a policy argument on whether or not you support these types of energy-saving bulbs. This amendment would prevent Members and staff from literally turning on the lights. If offices have these bulbs, which most do, they would be prohibited from using them.

One reason that folks support doing away with energy-efficient lightbulbs is because they consider them to be a potential mercury danger. There has been no proof that these lightbulbs expose people to unhealthy levels of mercury. This scare tactic is trying to impose fear and is a result of an overblown media report that exaggerated the potential danger.

These bulbs are safe. They're already installed and are used in the House, and they save taxpayers money. And, oh, by the way, I believe every thermostat we have in our House has quite a bit of mercury in there.

So with that, I urge defeat of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the example of the EPA indicating that this mercury would be a danger and so, off the subject then, when we talk about EPA standards and sustaining EPA, I hope that we can be on the same side on that one.

I continue to reserve my time in order to close the debate.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the utilization of what you call the curlicue and the other light bulb, I guess the question would remain, in terms of efficiency and sustainability, how long of a lifetime does what you call the curlicue light bulb have versus the other one? It seems to me that when I'm a shopper and I look at prices and I look at the number of hours that it's going to be up there, the number of hours that the newer bulbs have exceed anything that I've seen before.

Yes, but let me finish here. I just wanted to make sure that we don't confuse what we call efficiency with sustainability. I think the sustainability is also a piece that we should be looking at. The production of it, I think, is important, and I don't fight you on the point that we should make more stuff here. We should, and we will. I think that there are more products in Lowe's and Orchard Supply and places like that that exhibit that we are making more of that here.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, the wording of the gentleman's amendment says none of the funds made available in this act may be used to purchase, acquire, install, and use any medium screw-based compact florescent lamp or light. It also feels like the argument is about whether we can continue to purchase, or are we going to just allow these bulbs that we have in place to stay in place and not ever be removed.

So I think that, one, it's confusing. Two, I'm not sure that we're going to really attain this position of efficiency and sustainability under this amendment that is presented here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I have no objection. I just have a quick comment that I'm okay with including this prohibition. I think the Committee on the House Administration should review this issue and consider making a permanent change to House leasing policy, rather than having the Appropriations Committee carry this temporary fix.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The Flake amendment will prevent Members from sending mailings that do not use official letterhead. The Committee on House Administration handles franking, not one individual Member who has decided that he does not like the mailing system of other Members.

What the gentleman is trying to prevent is an eligible activity under franking guidelines. I would remind the gentleman that he is now a Member of the majority party. He should reach out to his leadership to change the House franking regulations if he has such a problem.

I do not believe in a one-man regulatory body, and I certainly do not believe one Member should dictate how another Member communicates with his or her constituents. I oppose the amendment on the grounds that the gentleman from Arizona is impinging on individual Members' choices in how they communicate with their constituents.

As I said before, the Committee on House Administration has all those guidelines; and the guidelines even make my job a little tight sometimes, but there is a purpose for the guidelines that they give us, and that is to distinguish between campaigns and making sure there are time lines prior to campaigns. So I appreciate his efforts, but I still oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent Members from purchasing advertising that hyperlinks to their official Web sites. It is unclear what the gentleman from Arizona is attempting to do. His amendment seems to sanction the advertisement as long as the link is to a nonofficial Web site of a Member. But why would a Member link an advertisement highlighting official events to his or her Facebook pages instead of to their House Web site?

This amendment also could make ads more expensive if Members have to put more information in the ads rather than linking them to their House Web site. So while the Member focuses on online advertisements, his amendment actually pertains to all advertisements. It is not clear if this amendment would be interpreted to prevent Members from showing their Web site link on television ads that are used to inform constituents of official events. These advertisements are sanctioned by House administration, and there are seven points that we have to follow.

So I would say that this amendment is not clear in its scope and impact, and it is in contravention of the majority's guidelines on how Members can use their MRA funding.

I rise today to oppose this ridiculous cut, cap, and balance proposal.

By walking away from every negotiation--from the Deficit Commission to the Biden Commission to direct talks with the President--Republicans have made it clear that they place petty politics above responsibly solving the country's budget challenges. This is the first budget bill or deficit reduction plan in the past quarter century that fails to specifically protect programs for the most vulnerable Americans from across-the-board cuts.

The ``duck, dodge, and dismantle act'' will butcher Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, child nutrition, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children, Planned Parenthood, supplemental income for the elderly, public schools, teachers, and pay for firefighters and cops-- all so that the Republicans can protect tax breaks and tax subsidies for the wealthy and powerful by erecting a constitutional barrier to any measure that would raise any revenue.

This bill is as extreme as it is unprecedented. It is not a serious response to months of good faith negotiations by the Democrats. I call on the House Republicans to stop the games and the posturing and do the responsible thing for the American people, and I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I have a written prepared statement I will include for the Record. It talks about California and the need for investments, and I don't think anybody is going to argue with the need for this country to invest in its country or its infrastructure. We have had that argument.

I'm trying to figure out a way how to make my comments without making anybody wrong. The chairman is faced with a difficult task of trying to balance a budget. He faces that challenge with limited funds. It is a terrible job. But I think we ought to look at the process and be thoughtful and explain to the people out there who are watching us, the young people here who are watching us, that we can be smart. We can be compassionate, and we can do that without allowing ourselves to be fighting among ourselves and trying to make decisions between jobs, the economy, infrastructure, and taking care of those who need to get back on their feet. I have no arguments with that.

My mother used to say when unexpected guests came to our house during dinnertime, you don't turn them away, you just add more water to the soup, and then you enjoy each other's company.

Congress is a living organism responsible for its past, its present, and its future.

In the past, according to the GAO, we spent about $150 billion just on Katrina. In Afghanistan, we spend $325 million a day. And in Iraq, we spend about $100 million a day. That's almost a $1 billion a day. We are talking almost a billion dollars in light rail. We can be both right and smart and compassionate if we do the right thing.

In our budgeting process, we should have a fund for unforeseen circumstances. We should learn from Katrina. We are looking at about $4 billion in terms of the Army Corps of Engineers. I think our leaderships need to get together and just say ``we can do this'' without fighting among each other, without making each other wrong, because that's wrong. In the eyes of the public, they want us to do the job that needs to get done and have our leadership do that.

So my plea is that we can be fiscally responsible and we can be compassionate, and we do that with good planning and good budgeting processes, including having contingency funds that should have been there. And so we have an opportunity right now to show the public that we can do all of these things and still come out winners for those who need the help, and those who need jobs, and still take care of the Nation's infrastructure needs. That's what America is all about. It's a can-do spirit without having to fight within our own families.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition of the underlying bill that rescinds over one billion dollars in high-speed rail investment to pay for emergency disaster relief due to storms and flooding in the Midwest--emergency disaster relief that should be funded through emergency appropriations.

The Majority appears proud to say they are offsetting the funds needed to help our citizens in the Midwest recover from the storms and floods that have devastated their communities.

But what the Majority is doing is really not something to be proud of.

The Majority is offsetting jobs and offsetting investments into our Nation's infrastructure.

Put bluntly, Madam Chair, with this bill the Majority is offsetting our Nation's future.

This bill would specifically rescind $68 million intended for the Next Generation Passenger Rail Equipment Purchase in my State of California. During these difficult economic times, rescinding these funds would result in the loss of as many as 1,892 jobs.

Earlier this year, the President released his annual budget request for Fiscal Year 2012, which calls for a $53 billion, 6-year investment in high-speed rail. I applaud the President's vision for a sustainable future.

Every other industrialized country in the world, except the U.S., has shifted its intermediate range travel, or 50 to 600 miles, to

high speed trains. Are they all wrong and only the U.S. right?

Madam Chair, polls show over 70 percent of Californians support the 800-mile, double-track, grade-separated, fast, clean, quiet, and safe high speed trains that will link San Jose with Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego. California must lead the Nation into the future.

Let's not forget, Californians voted for $9.95 billion for this project in 2008, a major reason over $3.7 billion in Federal funding has been granted for our State's starter project. Those funds, with the President's proposal and private investments in discussion, could kick- start the Silicon Valley extension, the first major job destination for California's system.

The investment proposed by the President directly impacts my constituents in Silicon Valley. Those funds could bring the California High-Speed Rail Authority's starter construction project, already- funded between Bakersfield and Fresno, through the Pacheco Pass to Silicon Valley.

Benefits to Silicon Valley are profound; mobility, employment, cleaner air, and international competitiveness.

Mobility: California's high speed rail project connects to many feeder modes at the Diridon Station, across from the HP Pavilion and the proposed A's baseball park in the heart of the Silicon Valley. When finished by 2020, the Diridon Station will be one of the Nation's largest multimodal hubs, with over 600 trains per day including high speed rail, BART, CalTrain, the Capital Trains, Altamont Express, Amtrak, light rail, bus lines, an automated shuttle to the Mineta International Airport, and more.

Employment: Return-on-investment is the first rule for Silicon Valley. Research proves investments in high speed rail return more than twice the cost, in tax revenue, over the life of the projects. And, with 30% construction unemployment, investment in high-speed rail means jobs, right now, in our State. Engineers estimate the project will create over 160,000 construction jobs, for as much as 30 years. An additional 450,000 jobs will be stimulated by the economic vitality created around the 26 down-town stations. Those jobs are in California, for Californians, and cannot be off- shored.

Clean Air: Research indicates over 90% of the future riders currently use single passenger cars or short-hop airlines, both major polluters. The electric trains are committed to use non-polluting renewable energy. The U.S. comprises 4% of the world's population but creates almost 25% of the world's greenhouse gasses. High speed rail is a powerful tool the rest of the world is already using to fight climate change.

Competitiveness: The emerging economic engines in Europe and Asia are rapidly overtaking the U.S. and California. They move people to work and products to the market more efficiently. China invested over $80 billion in high speed rail last year alone, over $1 trillion in the last decade, completing over 7,500 kilometers of their planned 13,000 kilometer system in just 9 years. The EU's dozen lines are similarly successful, and Japan is also expanding its system dramatically. Many of those systems are now operated profitably by private companies.

How is it possible for every other industrialized country, and many emerging economies, to afford state-of-the-art high speed rail systems and claim that the world's richest country cannot?

Madam Chair, Americans support investments in our county's transportation infrastructure. A recent Rockefeller Foundation survey found 91% of the national sample agreeing that, ``our generation has a responsibility to the future to invest in America's infrastructure-- just as our parents and grandparents did.''

The foresight of our forefathers, who ensured that our highways, waterways, and railways promoted our economy, must not be lost now. We too must be good ancestors. High-speed rail is the future. The time to invest in that future is now.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill is yet another glaring example of the flawed nature of the Republican budget. To try to meet their unrealistic goal of reducing the deficit solely through domestic non-defense discretionary spending cuts, Republicans are proposing to make crippling cuts to our national investment in improving energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources.

These cuts will only serve to make our Nation more dependent on the coal, oil, and gas interests that own the Republican Party and more dependent on importing our energy from insecure foreign sources. Meanwhile, our global competitors recognize that this is an area in which there are many gains to be made and they are investing heavily to develop their own renewable resources and promote domestic economic and job growth.

Investment in clean energy is much more cost effective than continued giveaways to the oil and gas industry--the Commerce Department has found that clean energy generates 17 jobs for every $1 million spent on it, compared to just 5 jobs for every $1 million we throw at an oil and gas industry that doesn't need subsidies but continues to fight for subsidies and tax breaks.

As a representative from Silicon Valley, I hear every day from the companies in and around my district about how renewable energy sources like solar, wind, fuel cells, and hydrokinetic are the wave of the future. To reach their full potential, these sources must be enabled by basic science underlying new energy technologies, by the development of advanced batteries for electricity storage and through improved energy efficiency across the board, through solid state lighting technologies, building technologies, and smarter electronic devices that know when to reduce their energy consumption.

These fields are where the jobs are--WIRED magazine asked the professional networking service LinkedIn to survey its members who have switched industries in the last 5 years, and what it found was that the growth in Renewables and the Environment was 56.8 percent, far more than any other. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, an organization of influential high-tech CEOs, includes ``greater deployment of clean energy and clean technology coupled with investments in energy efficiency'' in its federal policy agenda, because they know it ``will contribute to this objective [energy independence] while generating hundreds of thousands of new, sustainable jobs here in the United States.''

Sadly, this Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill does not reflect these important priorities. Instead, it provides only $1.3 billion for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs, 27 percent below the current funding level and 59 percent below the President's Budget Request. Funding is slashed for many activities: solar energy, 64 percent below the President's request; fuel efficient vehicle technologies, 57 percent below the President's request; building technologies, 68 percent below the President's request; biomass and bio-refinery research and development, 56 percent below the President's request; home weatherization assistance, nearly 90 percent below the President's request; and the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, 82 percent below the President's request.

The unrealistic Republican budget has left us with an allocation for this bill that is too small for our Nation's needs, and too small to offer meaningful amendments to improve these woefully inadequate funding levels. To make matters worse, Republicans have been so driven by ideology that they required the chairman to include an offset in this bill for emergency spending to deal with recovery from the storms and flooding along the Mississippi River, an offset that would gut our national investment in High Speed Rail. This requirement marks yet another way in which this Energy and Water Development bill would take our Nation backwards, away from achieving a sustainable future.

We need to do better than this bill. We need to aggressively pursue clean energy while we still have control of the game, before it is too late and our climate has changed forever, we are running out of oil, and we are running out of time. Silicon Valley is ready to lead, we just need the rest of the Nation to join us. I oppose this bill because it fails our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that the Republican majority in the House would even craft a bill such as the BULB Act, much less actually bring it to the floor for a vote. This bill is based on inaccurate and downright false claims like the one made by the Wall Street Journal when it outrageously tried to say that by setting energy efficiency standards for light bulbs, ``Washington will effectively ban the sale of conventional incandescent light bulbs.'' Nothing could be further from the truth.

The lighting efficiency standards enacted by Congress in 2007 do not ban incandescent light bulbs, they simply make those bulbs 25 to 30 percent more efficient and help incentivize the development of even more efficient lighting using alternative technologies, such as compact fluorescent lighting or light emitting diodes.

Major light bulb manufacturers such as Philips, Osram Sylvania, and General Electric have already developed more efficient incandescent bulbs that consumers can purchase in the store today that meet the new standards. Clearly, statements like the one made by the Wall Street Journal are incorrect, because incandescent bulbs to meet the standard already exist developed solely because the standard is in place.

The standard is also spurring manufacturers to develop even more efficient lighting options than just these new incandescent bulbs, creating R&D and high-tech manufacturing jobs in the U.S. In Silicon Valley alone, Philips employs over 700 people and hired more than 100 people at its LED facility in San Jose, California in 2010. We need to encourage this kind of work, not roll back standards that led to the shipping of bulb manufacturing overseas.

The standard is good for the environment, too--it will save the amount of electricity generated by more than 30 large power plants, and prevent the emission of global warming pollution equivalent to the amount released by 14 million cars and light trucks each year. Critics may argue that by promoting the use of compact fluorescent bulbs, the standard would increase exposure to mercury, but on this they are also wrong--the reduction in mercury emissions from coal power plants that would be achieved because less electricity is needed for lighting is ten times greater than the mercury that could escape from a compact fluorescent bulb in a landfill.

Repealing the lighting efficiency standard would cost the typical consumer around $100 per year in additional energy costs. In essence, Republicans want to institute an energy tax on consumers in order to cling to some antiquated vision of the past.

As a representative of Silicon Valley, I know that we must look to the future and do everything that we can to promote the development and domestic manufacture of new technologies that will help us use less energy and grow our economy. That is why I support the new lighting efficiency standards and vehemently oppose H.R. 2147, the BULB Act.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, on March 16, 2011, I joined my cochairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Task Force on Peace and Security and 76 other Members of Congress in sending a letter to the President asking him to move swiftly to end America's longest war, the war in Afghanistan.

Since then, the cochairs have continued to call on the administration to move towards a significant, swift and sizeable reduction in our troops in Afghanistan, meeting or exceeding the number of troops on the ground before the escalation.

Similarly, the Democratic National Committee, of which I am vice chair, called for a ``sizeable and significant'' drawdown beginning in July. Even the U.S. Conference of Mayors called for an end to the Afghanistan war. In poll after poll, the majority of Americans are consistently calling for an end to this war.

A significant redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, beginning of this month, would have sent a clear message that the United States does not seek a permanent presence in Afghanistan.

This move would recognize that we cannot afford the war in Afghanistan, costing nearly $10 billion per month, while American families struggle to stay afloat amid the slow recovery of our Nation's economy.

The cochairs of the CPC Task Force on Peace and Security believe that a significant, swift, and sizeable troop reduction in Afghanistan is necessary, especially given the fact that the CBO reported recently that ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will save this country $1.7 trillion, and especially given the fact that a recent Brown University study shows that the United States has spent $3.7 trillion in these wars since 2001.

Anything less hurts our Nation's future and is unacceptable. It is time to focus on securing a future of economic opportunity and prosperity for the American people, and the President must move swiftly and boldly to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home now.

The President's announcement last month does not reflect a significant policy change in Afghanistan. This strategy does not represent a drawdown in Afghanistan, but rather aims at maintaining the status quo through the end of 2012.

Simply removing the 30,000 surge troops from Afghanistan means that by the end of the summer of 2012 we will be exactly where we were in late 2009. Tens of thousands of American soldiers will continue to fight a battle that their commanders insist will only end with a political solution.

Peace in Afghanistan will depend ultimately on an Afghan solution, not on American soldiers. Everyone seems tired of this war, from Republicans and Democrats in Washington, to Afghans in Kabul, to Americans in Kansas. Administration officials acknowledged that due to America's mounting debt and deficits, war costs at nearly $120 billion annually for Afghanistan alone are no longer sustainable.

Republicans gave similar ground with Appropriations Chair Harold Rogers and Defense Subcommittee Member Jack Kingston expressing concern about the costs, the mission, and the lack of progress--bolstering Republican Senator Dick Lugar's call for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Nearly half the House weighed in during the recent Defense authorization debate with a call for an accelerated plan to draw down troops and transition to Afghan control.

Moving beyond what Washington wants, consider the Afghans, who are at the receiving end of all of this. After a series of serious civilian casualties resulting from multiple indiscriminate NATO bombings, Afghan President Hamid Karzai had declared opposition to any and all air strikes on Afghan homes. This adds to Karzai's insistence that foreign forces must end night raids, stop unilateral operations, and stay off roads and out of Afghan villages.

The Afghan people are no more pleased than Karzai with America's continued presence, hardly a surprise given that General Petraeus has increased bombing throughout the country by 80 percent in the last year alone. According to a recent poll, nearly six out of 10 Afghans said Western troops must leave on or before the original July 2011 withdrawal date. Only 17 percent say that the deployment should be maintained longer.

After spending hundreds of billions of American tax dollars, the security and day-to-day life in many regions of Afghanistan aren't improving. Crime, economic opportunity, and freedom of movement are getting worse, not better. Availability of electricity, food, medical care, and schools has shown little or no improvement in recent years.

So, for all these reasons and more, the case is clear: We need to end this war in Afghanistan, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to urge the President and this Congress to listen to the American people when negotiating a budget agreement. As much as the politicians argue, they don't seem to hear the good sense of the American people. The many closed-door meetings in Washington to decide America's future are filled instead with esoteric and magical formulas purporting to close the deficit. One group wants budget caps. Another wants trigger clauses. A third wants simplistic rules.

None of these will work. These are gimmicks, not governing. Governing is about making choices, setting priorities, and following through. Governing is also about ensuring that the interests and values of the American people are at the negotiating table. If not, any new deal will benefit only the rich and powerful or simply postpone any real

decisions until after 2012. Either way, America will lose.

A budget deal needs to be publicly debated and needs to reflect the true values and the views of the American people. One group in Congress gets this. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has heard the message of the American people who want to cut the deficit without cutting into America's future and without destroying America's sense of fairness. Ask the public what they want and they will tell you.

Let us defend our health programs for the elderly and the poor, Medicare and Medicaid. Let us hold to our intergenerational promise of Social Security. Let us invest in education, research and development, and fix our crumbling infrastructure. Let us bring our men and women home from Iraq and Afghanistan and save at least $150 billion a year, not to mention the lives saved as well. Let us rebuild America.

Any budget agreement must not hurt the economy. America is making economic progress, but many families are still struggling. And we must do more to create jobs. Any budget agreement must raise revenue. Americans know it. It would be irresponsible, unwise, and unfair to reduce the deficit and debt while leaving tax breaks for big corporations and millionaires in place. A fair budget will not emerge from behind closed doors. We need an open budget process, one that keeps the interests and the bottom majority of the American people front and center.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus wants to bring the people's budget to the forefront of publicly held negotiations as well as a budget plan that would truly put the American Dream back within the reach for the majority of the Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today upon the introduction of the VITA Act of 2011. This legislation would permanently authorize the Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant Program that has been funded through the annual appropriations process since Fiscal Year 2008.

The availability of free tax education and assistance programs in local communities helps many low-income individuals avoid having to depend upon paid tax return preparers and refund anticipation loans in order to successfully file their annual federal income tax returns. Currently, the Community VITA Program is a federally-supported taxpayer education and assistance program funded through the Internal Revenue Service, aimed at supporting low-income individuals and targeted subpopulations during the tax preparation process.

VITA programs offer free tax assistance to low-to-moderate income individuals who cannot afford professional assistance. More than 75,000 VITA volunteers prepare basic tax returns for low income taxpayers with a focus on at least one specific underserved group with special needs, including persons with disabilities, non-English speaking persons, Native Americans, rural taxpayers, and the elderly. The continued federal support has enabled community VITA programs to reach more underserved low-income taxpayers, and resulted in more families accessing vital tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC). During the 2009 filing season, VITA centers prepared over 1.2 million tax returns and brought back over $1.6 billion in tax returns to working families.

The VITA Act of 2011 would authorize $30 million in matching grants to eligible Community VITA Programs to be used for program operation, taxpayer outreach, and related financial services. The legislation would also establish a National Center to Promote Quality, Excellence, and Evaluation in VITA with a $5 million authorization to disseminate best practices, facilitate technical assistance, coordinate program outcomes, and ensure continuation of service to underserved taxpayers for the 4,500 VITA sites operating nationwide.

The benefits of this community-based approach are abundant. First, VITA centers offer taxpayers a free, community-based alternative to commercial tax preparation chains, some of which steer low-income taxpayers into Refund Anticipation Loans, essentially borrowing their own money at high interest rates. Second, considerable evidence demonstrates that VITA centers significantly increase taxpayer compliance. Finally, VITA centers ensure that taxpayers not only claim the benefits of which they are entitled, but that they are also exposed to a variety of financial literacy tools

and savings strategies aimed at helping them build assets for the future.

For these reasons, I have joined Senator Sherrod Brown in introducing the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Act of 2011, which is focused on expanding the original successes of the VITA program and ensuring the program is brought to a national scale. I urge all my colleagues to join me in this bill, which saves the Federal Government money, pumps money into our communities and gives a fair deal to our working families.

Offered By: Mr. Honda

Amendment No. 80: Page 60, beginning on line 15, strike ``;

and of which none of the funds may be used for grants for

immigrant integration''.

Mr. Speaker, this May, I am honored to join my friends in the Jewish community in celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month, and to recognize the many contributions Jewish Americans have made to our country.

Jewish immigrants came to our country inspired by the promise of cultural and religious tolerance and socioeconomic mobility. For more than 350 years, Jewish Americans have enriched American society by placing a strong value on education, community and culture.

They have also contributed to the economic vitality of our Nation, particularly California's 15th Congressional District, through their innovations in technology. Thanks to their entrepreneurial spirit, Jewish Americans have become the leaders in renewable energy development and high technology in my district. Without question, Silicon Valley would not be the hub of innovation it is today without the contributions of Jewish Americans.

The Jewish American community in my district serves as a shining example of what makes Silicon Valley a global leader. I am privileged to represent a community of Jewish Americans whose contributions in the fields of technology, business, and education, among many others, have served as a testament to America's promise as a land of opportunity.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a straightforward amendment that would remove language in the bill that targets immigrant integration grants.

What are immigrant integration grants, and why are they important?

Every year, immigrant integration grants provide funding to local churches, schools, and community centers across the Nation, from Catholic Charities in Dallas to the Ukrainian Community Center of Washington State to West Georgia Technical College to prepare legal permanent residents for citizenship.

Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman: these grants are for legal permanent residents, or citizens in waiting, like many of our parents and grandparents who came to America not speaking a word of English or knowing the great history and civics of our country.

Citizenship instruction through these grants must include U.S. history and government lessons and civics-focused English lessons. We often hear from the other side that immigrants coming to this country should learn English, and they should. These grants provide a way for immigrants to do exactly that. It is perhaps fortuitous--and that is spelled F-O-R-T-U-I-T-O-U-S, fortuitous--that we are debating this amendment as the 2011 Scripps National Spelling Bee begins its annual competition this week.

As one goes down the list of the 275 young student spellers, it is worth noting and pointing out that many of

them have parents who are immigrants or are immigrants themselves. Eight of the past 12 champions of the Scripps National Spelling Bee were foreign born or had parents who were foreign born.

Renowned linguist Ben Zimmer points out the connection between immigrant families and the spelling bee in this week's NPR story. On the topic Mr. Zimmer tells NPR: ``These kids are spending sometimes a few hours a day going through word lists to learn the most difficult words in English. Very often, they are youngsters coming from immigrant families that really prize learning English as part of becoming assimilated into American culture. So, my hat's off to all these young spellers.''

Mr. Chairman, the immigrants who rely on integration grants are often the parents of these success stories. They are the mother at the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society in New York, or the father at the Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota who, after working two jobs in a day, still find the energy to make it to a night class where they can learn English and learn about our Nation's history and government.

The energy that drives these parents is the same energy that drove our immigrant parents and grandparents--the idea that their hard work would give their children a chance to a better life in America.

And while the English language learner population is often characterized as solely immigrant, the reality is that the native born, U.S.-born English language learner population nearly doubled between the year 2000 and 2005 and is increasing at a higher rate than the immigrant population.

Between 2010 and 2030, these first- and second-generation immigrants are projected to account for all growth in the U.S. labor force. Better preparing this workforce will unite and strengthen our country.

The notion that we as a Nation shouldn't fund programs like integration grants flies in the face of what our country is all about. These new Americans are not looking for an easy ride. They're simply looking for the chance to learn English, learn about the history of their new home, learn about the history of their adopted home, their choice of a new home, and integrate into the fabric of America. There should be a direct source of appropriations for immigrant integration grants, which this bill takes away. At the very least, there should not be restrictions on how USCIS can fund these important grants in this bill.

So I ask my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, an unnecessary and intrusive bill that represents a short-sighted attack on the rights of women and families, and distracts us from the work that Americans sent us here to do.

H.R. 3 would diminish meaningful access to healthcare for millions of lower and middle income families by denying them tax credits if the insurance plan they choose includes coverage for abortion services. This means that under this bill, for the first time ever, our country would equate health expenses that are the subject of preferential tax treatment as the same as federal spending. The costs of health services remain the same, whether the coverage for abortions is provided in a plan or not. Removing these tax breaks for the most vulnerable members of our society is not only dangerous, it is heartless, and it will return a constitutionally-protected medical procedure to its dark back- alley days. Rather than offering real solutions to the problems our nation faces, the other side of the aisle only offers a return to the fights over social issues of the past.

Republicans claim that H.R. 3 merely codifies the Hyde Amendment, a provision prohibiting the use of federal funds for most abortion services, but it goes much farther than that--it tries to end private insurance coverage of abortion care. Besides, the Hyde Amendment has been passed every single year for nearly forty years--we already have a law prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, we don't need another one.

H.R. 3 is an unnecessary distraction from the real issues that we were sent here to address. While some of us take our duties seriously, the GOP is busy creating diversions to avoid doing real work. Rather than focus on job creation, as the American public has said it wants us to do, the Republican majority would limit women's healthcare options and increase healthcare costs for lower- and middle-income women and families. This kind of diversion has no place in this Congress. The GOP has been in the majority for four months, yet they have failed to introduce even one piece of legislation that addresses jobs. They do, however, have the time to play political games with the health care of poor Americans and to attack the rights of every woman in this country to choice--a personal decision that is and should remain between a women and her physician.

The proponents of this legislation aren't interested in addressing real problems, Madam Speaker. They're only interested in creating more of them. That is why I oppose H.R. 3.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, budgets are more than collections of numbers; they are a statement of our values. The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget is a reflection of the values and priorities of working families in this country. Our budget charts a path that keeps America exceptional while addressing the most pressing problems facing the Nation today.

Our budget eliminates the deficit and stabilizes the debt by 2021. It does this in a manner consistent with the aspirations of the American people. It does this by restoring our economic competitiveness so that we can all experience the fullest definition of the American Dream: that each of our children will do better than we did.

We did not set these goals arbitrarily. Our budget was crafted by listening to the American people. In poll after poll, they are telling us that they want us to preserve Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid; to make higher education more affordable; to expand job training programs; to invest in roads, research and, above all, in great schools for our children.

We can do all of these things and eliminate our deficit. We have a moral imperative to do so. The people's budget is fair; it is just; it is a step towards moving this debate back to the true center.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Progressive budget. It is the people's budget. Please vote for our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Frankenstein monster of accounting that the Republicans call a budget. The Republican

budget, endorsed by every member of the Republican Conference, from John Boehner down to the rank and file, has two goals: One, end Medicare, and, two, provide hundreds of billions in tax cuts to the rich.

A lot will be said about these two things by my colleagues, so I want to discuss some of the more dangerous cuts that may not make it to the front page of USA Today, but will still hurt every working family and their children. If you look at this chart beside me you will see that in the red that the Republicans provide the rich with $800 billion, with a B, in tax cuts over the next 10 years.

How do they pay for this spending? On the backs of working families and children.

We will show you charts that are very explicit with details. You will see other charts that may not be very explicit. But right here we show you the cuts to vital services to our people. The column on our right shows the cuts to every American in this country that needs day-to-day services, things like roads, access to health care and, above all, great schools for all our children. The Republican budget is nothing short of a disaster for our children.

I am a classroom teacher, and I should know. The Republican budget cuts over a quarter of funding for education. This Republican budget cut means huge cuts for Head Start. This is the Republican budget paying for tax cuts for the rich on the backs of 1 million poor children. The Republican budget means huge cuts for K-12 education. This is how the Republican budget pays for tax cuts for the rich--on the backs of 20 million elementary and secondary students.

The Republican budget means huge cuts to Pell Grants to help working class kids pay for college and secure the American Dream. This is how the Republican budget pays for tax cuts for the rich--on the backs of 9 million college students.

In short, the Republican budget requires heavy sacrifices for everyone except the richest Americans and the richest corporations. It's like the billionaire CEO who cuts a thousand jobs and gives himself a bonus. This is not right.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Nowruz, the traditional Iranian New Year, and take the opportunity to celebrate Iranian Americans' contributions to America. I wish Iranian Americans and the people of Iran a prosperous new year.

Nowruz originated in ancient Persia, and dates back more than 3,000 years. Nowruz means a ``New Day'' which occurs on the vernal equinox and celebrates the arrival of spring. It symbolizes a time of renewal and community, and it harkens the departure from the trials and tribulations of the previous year and brings hope for the New Year.

Nowruz is celebrated by nearly 300 million Iranians and other peoples all over the world, including in the United States, Iran, and other countries in Central Asia, South Asia, Caucasus, Crimea, and Balkan Regions. It is also celebrated by more than 1 million Iranian Americans of all backgrounds, including those with Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, and non-religious backgrounds.

Nowruz embodies the tradition that each individual's thinking, speaking, and conduct should always be virtuous, and the ideal of compassion for our fellow human beings regardless of ethnicity or religion, and symbolizes a time of renewal and community.

In 539 B.C., Cyrus the Great established one of the earliest charters on human rights, which abolished slavery and allowed for freedom of religion, and this marker in Iranian history has had significant impact on the respect for human rights that Iranian Americans carry today.

Iranian Americans continue to make contributions in all sectors of American public life, including government, military, and law enforcement officials, who proudly serve to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect all people in the United States.

The United States is a melting pot of ethnicities and religion and Nowruz contributes to the richness of American culture and is consistent with our founding principles of peace and prosperity for all.