Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Brad Goldberg, who is being honored by the Humane Society of the United States for his dedication to the animal protection movement.

After a 35-year career in investment management in which Mr. Goldberg became senior vice president of Jennison Associates, a subsidiary of Prudential Financial, he retired to pursue his passion--animal welfare. Since 2001, Mr. Goldberg has run Animal Welfare Trust, an organization he founded, which works to increase grant-making and capacity building for animal welfare groups. He has devoted himself to this organization, which has been involved in numerous animal welfare related initiatives, including support for a Florida ballot measure outlawing gestation crates, as well as the New York Coalition for Healthy School Food, which advocates for a plant-based diet in schools.

Mr. Goldberg is also the Chair of HEART, a charity sponsored by Animal Welfare Trust that educates children to be compassionate and considerate of all living beings. As Chair of HEART, he has also given major gifts to support animal studies and animal law, and has funded fellowships for lawyers to work at nonprofits like the Humane Society. It is for this work in particular that Mr. Goldberg is being awarded the Compassion in Action Award by the Humane Society of the United States.

In his personal life, Mr. Goldberg is a loving and devoted husband, father and grandfather. Activism and volunteerism are priorities for Mr. Goldberg and his wife Sunny, and animal welfare is one of many causes to benefit from their devotion to community and the common good. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Brad Goldberg for his hard work and devotion to the animal protection movement and congratulate him for receiving the Compassion in Action Award.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize StayUNITED, a nonprofit organization based in Rockland County, New York, and its founders, Mark and Ismini Svensson.

StayUNITED is devoted to improving the quality of life for children and youth across the country and throughout the world. Their recent initiative, ``50 Acts of Giving Back,'' promotes volunteerism while highlighting the power of social media to promote good causes. Mark and Ismini Svensson, both constituents of the New York 17th District, are traveling across the country, visiting all 50 states, to perform 50 acts of kindness. At the same time, they are using social media platforms to inspire others to become active members of their communities by performing their own acts of kindness.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Mark and Ismini Svensson for their hard work and devotion to improving the lives of children across the globe. Their charitable journey is an inspiration for others and, through their hard work and kindness, has made the world a better place.

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

While it was my sincere hope that we could have completed action on all 12 appropriation bills before the end of the fiscal year, I understand Chairman Rogers' desire to quickly pass the CR and prevent another disastrous government shutdown.

This continuing resolution gives the House and Senate Appropriations Committees roughly 3 months to reach agreement on each of the discretionary bills and the important programs they fund. Of great importance in these negotiations will be the funding levels in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education bill. Unfortunately, it has the dubious distinction of being the only one not even brought to the full committee for markup, denying Members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer amendments and have a full, open debate about these critical programs.

Yesterday, Ranking Member DeLauro and all the Democratic members of that subcommittee introduced our version of the bill that we hope will help clarify our priorities for the process in the coming months.

The CR portion of this legislative package contains much-needed funding to address urgent crises, including the spread of Ebola, ensuring critical work continues to develop and manufacture treatment therapies, as well as work on a vaccine.

However, I do regret that the majority's proposed CR resorts to one of the worst legislative mechanisms to reduce scoring, an across-the- board cut. This type of provision shirks one of the most fundamental responsibilities of this committee, making difficult decisions about program levels. Worse still, it is misleading to the public and creates an illusion that program levels remain at last year's level, when they are, in fact, lower.

I also have concerns with the length of the extension of the Export- Import Bank.

The President spoke forcefully about the threat of ISIL last week. There is a clear need for an international coalition to execute an aggressive, targeted strategy aimed at degrading ISIL, and later this afternoon, the House will begin debate on the administration's request for narrow title 10 authority.

Lastly, the rules of this CR added three technical changes to the underlying text that were needed and which I support. Additional language was needed on the Ebola funding, on the LIHEAP money, and on recreation fees.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, no appropriator ever wants a CR, but none of us want to repeat last year's shutdown. It is my sincere hope that if this CR is enacted we can use the coming months wisely to craft agreement on all 12 bills by December 11. There is absolutely no reason to punt our responsibilities into the new year and the new Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Labor, HHS, and Foreign Operations Subcommittees of Appropriations.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking minority member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and a senior member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a member of the Homeland Security and Foreign Operations Subcommittees.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this emergency supplemental furthering our commitment and support to our steadfast ally through critically-needed funding for the Iron Dome missile defense system.

Israel is currently embroiled in a devastating war on terrorism. For weeks, Hamas, an internationally-recognized terrorist organization, has indiscriminately fired thousands of rockets into Israel and has built miles of tunnels to launch vicious land attacks.

Just yesterday, in a dastardly breach of the humanitarian ceasefire, Hamas operatives reportedly surfaced from a tunnel, killed two Israeli soldiers, and abducted a third, Hadar Goldin. I join the Administration in demanding his immediate and unconditional release.

We are all heartbroken by the devastating loss of human life on both sides. But the fact remains, Hamas is responsible for this war, cowardly booby-traps in UN-health clinics, hiding rockets in UN-run schools, instructing Gazans to ignore Israeli warnings to relocate to protect its weapons instead, and repeatedly violating internationally- backed ceasefires.

Innocent Israelis and Palestinians have already suffered an enormous toll. Yet Hamas remains committed to wreaking fear and havoc on as many civilians as possible.

That is why this measure is vital. Iron Dome has already protected millions of Israelis who must have our full backing.

The additional $225 million will accelerate production of Iron Dome to counter short-range rockets.

I urge immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today to oppose this outrageous bill and the ridiculous process that produced it.

Just yesterday, this House attempted to consider a bill that went too far on policy and not far enough on funding levels, but apparently even that wasn't bad enough for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's bill vanished into thin air, and in its place, we now have this haphazard mess. This bill is the result of some sort of auction with members of the majority.

The bill also paves the way for another piece of legislation to be approved tonight--a brand-new bill on the so-called DACA--deferred action on undocumented children program--related to young people who were brought here as minors by 2007 and only know the United States of America as their home. This new bill has not been approved by any committee and contains language that would throw thousands of young people into legal limbo.

This new supplemental funding bill would add an additional $35 million to reimburse States for deploying the National Guard to the border, which is pointless. In other words, U.S. taxpayers will pick up the tab for Governor Perry's campaign stunt.

The bill also would change the initial screening process used by Customs and Border Patrol. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes the change, noting:

It would make crippling changes to current U.S.-trafficking

victim protection law that we fear would send these

vulnerable children, and others in the future who have fled

trauma, exploitation, and violence, back into harm's way,

likely resulting in continued degradation, injury, and death

for many of them.

I insert the letter into the Record.

U.S. Conference of

Catholic Bishops,

Committee on Migration,

Washington, DC, August 1, 2014.

Dear Representative: I write to reaffirm the opposition of

the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to H.R. 5230

and express our opposition to H.R. 5232.

Our opposition to H.R. 5230 stems from four troubling

aspects of the measure. First, it would make crippling

changes to current U.S. trafficking victim protection law

that we fear would send these vulnerable children, and others

in the future who have fled trauma, exploitation, and

violence, back into harm's way, likely resulting in continued

degradation, injury, and death for many of them. Second, it

would not provide adequate funding for the Department of

Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement

(ORR) to enable it to care for vulnerable unaccompanied

children in U.S. custody. Third, its level of funding for ORR

is so low that it would severely hamper the agency's ability

to fulfill its responsibility to care for refugees, asylum

seekers, special immigrants, trafficking victims, and torture

victims. And fourth, the measure contains no provisions to

address the root causes that have compelled so many children

to make the arduous journey from their homes in Central

America to the United States and elsewhere in the region.

Our opposition to H.R. 5232 stems from its elimination of

the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It

is our view that this program has helped protect a vulnerable

group of children who for all extensive purposes are

Americans. It would subject them once again to removal to

countries they do not know. We urge its defeat.

How our nation responds to this humanitarian challenge is a

moral test of our national character. We ask that you oppose

H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5232, which we feel fail to live up to

that test.

Sincerely,

Most Reverend Eusebio Elizondo,

Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle, WA,

Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

Mr. Speaker, this House majority needs to make up its collective mind. Do they want to provide emergency funding to enable our Federal agencies to respond to the humanitarian crisis on the border? Or do they wish to rewrite current law on immigration, political asylum, and due process? We can't do both in an hour of floor consideration.

The House should have already taken up bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform the Senate passed more than 1 year ago, with the support of Democrats and Republicans, the labor and business communities, evangelicals, law enforcement, and many others.

We would have been proud to work together with our Republicans on the other side of the aisle to give thoughtful consideration to this immigration process. The Senate did it. We had an opportunity to do it, and instead, we are rushing through tonight to put a bill on the floor that has changed many times as it has proceeded through the process.

That bill, the comprehensive immigration bill, would have helped prevent the crisis on the border today. If we had passed this 1 year ago, we wouldn't be in the desperate situation we are in now. Now, we are at a point where it requires emergency supplemental funding that we should provide cleanly and quickly without the baggage of extraneous policy that caused so much political division.

This package crossed the line from being a supplemental spending bill and became a controversial revision of immigration policy with limited funding thrown in as an afterthought. That is a shame. That is really sad because we know that the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services, and State need this money to do the job.

Mr. Speaker, just last year, this body allowed a small vocal minority to push a government shutdown over controversial policy ideas. This process today causes me to wonder whether many have learned the perils of such recklessness.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this package and start over. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip of the House.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee that the reason the Senate could not bring a bill to the floor was because not one Republican will allow the procedural vote of cloture to bring it to the floor. Therefore, we are having a very important debate, but this bill, as you know, is going nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations.

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

I am proud to be a Member of the Congress of the United States of America because I have respect for the law. The comprehensive immigration bill has been sitting out there for over a year. If we could work in a bipartisan way, if we could show that we have respect for the law, we would have had a serious debate and really passed a law. This bill is going nowhere. As you know, the Republicans in the Senate wouldn't even bring a bill to the floor.

That is why I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Foreign Operations Subcommittees of Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington, Adam Smith.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate, I would like to address my remarks to our distinguished chairman with whom I have worked for quite a while, and just once again, I would like to say this bill deserves a ``no'' vote.

I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan way to pass a real comprehensive immigration reform bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today to oppose this bill that, sadly, falls short in too many ways.

The key Federal agencies tasked with responding to the humanitarian crisis on our borders are dangerously close to running out of money. These unanticipated costs are affecting the core functions at the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. Although the bill includes funding to hire additional immigration judicial teams and help set up new repatriation centers in Central America, the amounts provided are insufficient.

The Justice Department and the State Department will not be able to handle their duties without significantly more resources. All four departments need more funding than this bill provides and fewer partisan immigration policy riders than this bill now contains.

Our majority unwisely included legislative language to make sweeping changes to current law related to due process and immigration proceedings. Controversial legislation hastily added to an emergency supplemental is not the way to address a complicated problem.

On July 8, the President requested $3.7 billion in emergency funding. The bill provides less than $700 million. The President requested funding through fiscal year 2015. This bill barely covers the remaining weeks in FY 2014, setting this House up to do this all over again in September.

The President's request also sought emergency funding to combat a dangerous wildfire season. As of Monday, the Forest Service reported 26 large uncontained wildfires burning in eight States. As a Member from New York, a region devastated by Hurricane Sandy, I am acutely aware how important it is for the Federal Government to provide a robust response. With the House adjourning today, Federal agencies will be left to fight August fires without more funds.

This bill also fails to provide funding to procure more Iron Dome interceptors for Israel as requested. Hamas has used the ongoing crisis in Israel and Gaza as an excuse to launch thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and towns. The Iron Dome missile defense system has proven highly effective at neutralizing the rockets.

In addition to not funding important priorities, the majority offsets the funding that is provided with cuts to other programs. We should provide emergency funds in a crisis situation.

Lastly, I strongly object to the majority's significant policy changes to existing law without any hearings or markups. Three-quarters of this appropriations bill is straight authorizing legislation. Clearly, many factors led these desperate parents to hand off their children to complete strangers, with the hope they make their way to safety here.

We ought to consider the complicated policy questions and provide a carefully considered solution, yet these policy changes reveal a knee- jerk response coupled with another bill to deport children who are already in the U.S.

In addition to emergency appropriations, we should consider bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform passed by the Senate over 1 year ago, which could have helped to prevent the current humanitarian crisis along our southwest border by increasing border security personnel and nearly doubling the number of immigration judges.

The two measures we will consider today are deeply disappointing. Madam Speaker, we should provide sufficient funding to cash-strapped agencies quickly and without the baggage of controversial immigration policy riders. I regret we will not do that with this bill, and I regret even more the consequences of our failure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), a member of both the Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Homeland Security Subcommittees.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip of the House.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chair of the House Democratic Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to say to the distinguished chairman, I would have liked to have heard from these experts in hearings. Unfortunately, the majority has not had hearings, and we are bringing this bill to the floor without any hearings, without any witnesses, and without any information.

I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, if I have the time.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to say to our distinguished chairman that it would have been helpful in having an analysis of the current statistics and the future prospects at hearings. But we are bringing this bill to the floor. The majority is bringing this bill to the floor without any hearings, without any discussion. This is really not the way to pass important legislation.

And, again, we had a bill. We could have had comprehensive immigration reform that passed the Senate in a bipartisan way.

I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Labor, Health, and Human Services; and Foreign Operations Subcommittees.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume because before I turn to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member, an expert on immigration on the Judiciary Committee, I just want to make one statement again.

The Senate, after months of hearings, passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. It is really very sad that today we can't get together, Democrats and Republicans, and review the work that had been done by the Senate and pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have prevented the emergency that we are trying to address today. The majority of the bill that is included in the supplemental should have been done through a thoughtful committee process.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Mr. Edmund Cook for his many years of service to American Legion Post 506, and to veterans in Westchester County, New York.

Born in Lithuania in 1945, Edmund Cook was separated from his family in the closing days of World War II. After being found and fed by American soldiers, he was put in a ``displaced persons (DP)'' Red Cross camp for five years until he was adopted by an American family. The kindness shown to him by those American soldiers would have a lasting impact on Mr. Cook, and would lead to a lifelong career of helping veterans.

After receiving a masters degree from Fordham University, Edmund joined the Veterans Administration (VA) at the Montrose, New York, VA Hospital facility as a Clinical Social Worker. In 1991, he was transferred to the White Plains, New York, Veterans Center to help soldiers suffering from PTSD in the aftermath of the Iraq War. He soon started treating veterans from all wars, and has worked tirelessly to ensure they all receive the care they need. He would even go to homeless shelters to seek out veterans in need of medical treatment, and would collect clothes to give veterans.

For the past 30 years, Mr. Cook has chaired the Boys State Program for Ossining Post 506 American Legion. This program offers high school boys the opportunity to learn how our government works, from the local and state level to the Federal Government. It is an important learning experience for young men who might one day seek opportunities in government work. Mr. Cook has infused his passion for helping others into this program, and he continues to inspire young men every year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Edmund Cook of Ossining, NY, for his lifetime of service to the veterans and youth of my district. His work has inspired others to help those in need, and he has truly lived up to the Veterans Administration motto, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring his tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC).

LSC was established by Congress in 1974 to provide civil legal aid to millions of Americans who would otherwise be unable to afford it. Congress gave the Corporation the mission of ensuring equal access to justice for all Americans, and the Corporation has worked tirelessly to achieve that goal. With nearly 800 offices serving every Congressional district and U.S. territory, LSC offers support to mothers trying to obtain child support, veterans seeking the benefits they earned, and to many other individuals facing an array of issues.

It is noteworthy that three out of four legal aid clients are women, and domestic violence is one of the top issues LSC clients face. Without the efforts of legal counsel from LSC, victims across the country would have no way to seek legal recourse for domestic disputes, enforcing child support payments, or maintaining custody of their children.

In addition, during Superstorm Sandy, when thousands of Americans had their homes and belongings damaged, LSC provided storm-related services to low-income victims to assist in filing claims with insurance companies and help retrieve documents such as insurance and mortgage paperwork that had been lost or damaged in the storm.

Mr. Speaker, every American, regardless of wealth, deserves quality representation before the courts. The work that LSC does to ensure that those most in need receive legal counsel and due process before the courts is invaluable. I am proud to recognize the Legal Services Corporation and LSC-funded attorneys for

the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who desperately need their counsel. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring their tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, July 20th marks the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. In 1974 over 200,000 Greek Cypriots were driven from their homes, becoming refugees in their own country. The legacy of this occupation still weighs heavily on the northern third of the island, which remains occupied by Turkish troops.

There is consensus in the international community that a unified, sovereign Cyprus is the only solution to rectifying decades of injustice. I believe the United Nations-led negotiations currently underway are the best means to achieve a fair and permanent settlement which will reunify the island. We are at a critical juncture in the pursuit of peace and prosperity for all Cypriots, and I urge all parties to move toward a peaceful resolution and reunification effort that will build a more united and prosperous Cyprus.

Cyprus is a strategically important ally of the United States, and Cyprus has proven itself to be a reliable partner in efforts to counter terrorism. I look forward to a reunified and prosperous Cyprus where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can live together in peace, security and stability.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill, which fails to prioritize the middle class, create jobs, and provide opportunity for every citizen to succeed, yet it contains a misguided political agenda, unworkable funding levels, and unnecessary riders that inhibit agencies' ability to crack down on special interest abuses.

For our economy to succeed, investors must have faith that regulators do their jobs, especially when we are still recovering from the economic harm caused by risky industry practice, yet this bill could put mom-and-pop investors and our entire economy at risk with inadequate funding authority for the SEC at $300 million below the request.

This is outrageous when you consider that the SEC's funding does not take a dime of U.S. taxpayer dollars or impact the deficit in any way because it is entirely fee-funded.

In the last fiscal year, due to budget constraints, the SEC examined only about 9 percent of registered investment advisers. The number of investment advisers has increased by 40 percent over the past decade, and assets under management have more than doubled, yet the SEC's funding has not kept up with the need.

It is clear this bill should do more to protect investors and ensure that industry does not resume practices that endanger Americans' hard- earned money.

This bill would cut the IRS budget by more than $340 million, to below fiscal year 2008 levels. These cuts would force the IRS to operate with 9,500 fewer staff.

The rate of response for taxpayers who call the IRS for assistance, which is currently a dismal 61 percent, would fall to less than 50 percent. Small business owners, taxpayers would waste their time on hold, instead of using that time to focus on strengthening their businesses and the economic security of their families or creating jobs. Disturbingly, these cuts would result in $2 billion in uncollected revenue compared to the request level.

While actions at the IRS warrant further oversight and reform, these cuts are excessive. The IRS should receive the resources it needs to train its workforce to uphold the highest standards, not cut it for the sake of making a political point.

These IRS cuts will only make it easier for tax cheats to go undetected and more difficult for law-abiding taxpayers to get assistance.

Other troublesome measures attempt to dictate local government decisions for Washington, D.C., and prohibit implementation of health reforms that have given millions of Americans affordable health coverage for the first time. It is also full of riders that unnecessarily involve women's health, needle exchanges, even a denial of funds for D.C. voting rights.

If Congress imposed these demands on any other area of the country, and particularly areas represented by some of my Republican friends, I expect many would yell from the rooftops that the Federal Government was imposing on your way of life and in your local decisions. These efforts are unfair to the citizens of Washington, D.C.

What frustrates me most is that my Republican friends know that government agencies cannot function at the levels they would impose, but would rather vote to slash funding even lower because it suits their political purposes. Our constituents deserve better than this cynical political exercise.

Vote ``no'' on this shameful bill that prioritizes special interests over the middle class.

Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member, whose bipartisan cooperation and hard work are evident in the bill before us.

This bill invests in a number of important programs that have strong Democratic backing. It underscores the constraints of virtually flat discretionary spending.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, underinvestment in our marine ports and inland waterways endangers more than 1 million U.S. jobs and $270 billion in U.S. exports by 2020.

While the Corps of Engineers would be given a slight increase above this year's level, budget caps won't help the Corps make a dent in its $60 billion project backlog, forcing them once again to put off vital projects that would protect homes, businesses, and communities.

We are also missing an opportunity to ramp up investments in science and technology. Research and development spending has fueled our economic growth for the last 60 years, and dramatic increases in this area are needed to sustain our economic recovery.

Flat funding for ARPA-E and the Office of Science is particularly problematic, given that other countries, including China, Russia, Germany, and Singapore, are increasing investments in these fields. We cannot permit an innovation deficit. We must ensure that tomorrow's breakthroughs occur in American labs and universities.

Given, however, the subcommittee's allocation, I am pleased that these critical accounts were mostly protected from cuts or slightly increased, but we could do better.

There are a number of shortcomings I would like to mention.

First is the continued safeguarding of Federal spending that benefits Big Oil and fossil fuel companies instead of supporting investments in emerging renewable technologies.

I strongly disagree with the $113 million cut to the energy efficiency and renewable energy account and the decision to fund the fossil energy account at $117.5 million above the President's request. Our country is home to a robust fossil fuels industrial base that makes over $100 billion annually in profits and actively invests in robust private sector R&D spending to advance its interests. With such a tight allocation, we should invest in creating green jobs of the future instead of backing an industry which already benefits from billions in tax breaks.

Second, the bill includes unnecessary riders related to navigable waters and the definition of fill materials under the Clean Water Act. The Corps of Engineers and EPA recently released a proposed rule regarding navigable waters, and their work needs to move forward in order to address the ambiguity created by Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006.

Despite strong disagreements regarding the merits of the proposed rule, these issues should be resolved through the rulemaking process, not in this bill. By preemptively stopping any efforts to update the definition of fill materials, this bill ensures that communities in coal country will continue to live with public health threats and the environmental consequences of mountaintop removal mining.

Lastly, this bill does not do nearly enough to address the incredibly damaging effects of climate change. Rising sea levels and increased flooding from torrential downpours and hurricanes demonstrate the overwhelming need to invest in new water infrastructure to safeguard our communities. Yet the subcommittee can't invest in new projects because its allocation is dwarfed by the growing backlog of ongoing projects, which includes projects that were authorized decades ago.

Clinging to outdated fossil fuels instead of doubling down on the promise of renewable energy slows future job growth that saves lives by lessening the impact of climate change.

I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member. The Defense Subcommittee has a long tradition of working closely together, and I sincerely appreciate these bipartisan efforts.

Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important and timely bill as the Department is tasked with drawing down forces in Afghanistan, is appropriately responding to the upheaval in Iraq, and is facing other challenges across the globe. Totaling $490.7 billion, the base portion of the bill is approximately $200 million above the President's request. However, after accounting for appropriate increases in Active Duty pay and housing costs, the remainder of the bill is actually below the President's proposed level. Budget caps and sequestration force difficult decisions, many of which will be debated this week.

Before we begin that discussion, I want to again thank the chairman and ranking member and recognize the constraints under which they assembled the bill.

The bill includes a number of provisions I strongly support: additional investments to address the epidemic of sexual assault plaguing our military; substantial funds for health services and suicide prevention as my colleague just informed me that, in March, there were zero combat fatalities, but there were 700 suicides; a 1.8 percent increase for Active Duty pay; support for the National Guard and Reserves as well as family support programs; significant funding for cybersecurity to protect our critical infrastructure from cyber attacks; and continued support for the Israeli Cooperative missile defense programs.

I applaud the inclusion of language that fences 75 percent of funds for the Defense Healthcare Management System Modernization, requiring a report from the Secretary of Defense on acquisition and the cost of the program, plus the status of efforts to achieve interoperability with the Department of Veterans Affairs. This system is critical to the health of our servicemembers, and expeditious interoperability between the DOD and the VA is essential to ensuring quality of care as they become veterans. Through continued oversight, this committee will make sure that the DOD stays on course and delivers the promised objectives.

I remain concerned about the lack of a formal budget for the overseas contingency operations funds. With continued uncertainty about future U.S. actions in Afghanistan, work remains on this account.

Again, I appreciate the professionalism and collegiality of the process, and I look forward to further cooperation as we work toward passing this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman and the ranking member in putting together this bill. While many of the funding decisions are appropriate, I do oppose this bill because I have deep objections to controversial riders.

First, this bill would begin to back away from much-needed efforts to make school meals healthier. According to the CDC, as of 2012, more than one-third of children and adolescents were obese.

Obese children are more likely to become obese adults, and thus are at a much greater risk of developing heart diseases, type 2 diabetes, stroke, and forms of cancer. Schools should support and teach healthy eating habits.

Instead of providing waivers, this bill should help the districts meet this higher standard by providing the technical assistance and training to become compliant.

Additionally, bill language would make white potatoes eligible for purchase by WIC participants, which is inconsistent with the purpose of the WIC program to include only foods based on documented nutritional deficiencies.

White potatoes are excluded today based on the best available science, and science, not special interests, should continue to be the guide for WIC's policies.

The majority should have fully embraced the work and purpose of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and fully funded the administration's request. I am also concerned that the bill provides only half of the requested funds to expand and improve oversight of drug compounding to ensure products are safe and effective.

I thank the chairman for working with me to ensure that the summer feeding pilot program remains open to children in rural and urban areas and adding report language related to sunscreen ingredients, sprays, and high SPF products.

I very much support the additional $13 million in funding for the McGovern-Dole food aid program and the restoration of funding for the Food for Peace program.

However, the bill should have also included the administration's proposal to allow up to 25 percent of title II resources to be made available in cash for emergencies to better respond to multiple, high- level crises around the world. This change alone would have allowed U.S. aid to reach an estimated 2 million more people in chronically food-insecure communities.

The bill provides sufficient funds for nutritional assistance programs, such as WIC and SNAP, and provides needed discretionary funds for food safety programs within FDA and the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

It is my sincere hope that we can improve these shortcomings before a bill is signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. John S. Ruskay for his contributions to the American Jewish community.

Dr. Ruskay has dedicated his life to the pursuit of education and philanthropy, serving many roles within the Jewish community throughout his career. From 1980 to 1985, Dr. Ruskay was the Educational Director of the 92nd Street Y in New York. This venerable institution is renowned for its devotion to philanthropy and community enhancement. It is a testimony to Dr. Ruskay's talents that he ran the educational pursuits of this institution.

He has also served as a senior consultant to the Wexner Foundation and the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. These organizations are at the forefront of fostering connections between individuals and their community. Their work has helped ensure that future generations of the Jewish community are not just aware of their cultural heritage, but that they are instilled with a desire to give back to the community as leaders.

For the past 15 years, Dr. Ruskay has served as CEO of the United Jewish Appeal-Federation of New York. In this role, he has provided strong leadership and has helped advance UJA-Federation's vision of a more interconnected Jewish community. Under his leadership, the UJA- Federation mobilized its resources to help launch the Israel Trauma Center to help Israeli victims of terror attacks during the second intifada. It was also under his leadership that the charity launched Connect to Care to help people struggling during the recession. And in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, UJA-Federation provided millions of dollars to help restore damaged communities.

Dr. Ruskay has been honored with numerous awards for his extensive work in the Jewish community in New York, the United States, and worldwide. He is a recipient of the Bernard Reisman Award for Professional Excellence from Brandeis University's Hornstein program and the Association of Jewish Communal Service's Mandelkom Distinguished Service Award. He also holds honorary doctorates from The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, the Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership, Hebrew Union College, and Yeshiva University.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Dr. John S. Ruskay for his remarkable service and lifelong commitment to enriching the lives of others. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring his tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor for their outstanding service to the Congress and to the country. They exemplify the spirit and history of bipartisan cooperation of the Appropriations Committee, and they will certainly be missed. I wish them both the best in the next chapter of their lives.

I appreciate their efforts to put this bill together. Their job was made all the more difficult by much lower than expected FHA and Ginnie Mae receipts.

Unfortunately, I must oppose this bill because it provides inadequate funding for our country's highway and transit infrastructure.

Specifically, cuts to the following critical infrastructure programs are unacceptable: Amtrak's capital funding is decreased by $200 million below fiscal year 2014, which will defer critical repairs; capital investment grants, which support new subway, light rail, and commuter projects are $809 million below the request, and the bill contains no funding for transit projects that are in the pipeline; TIGER would receive a paltry $100 million--while I am pleased the majority included it in its bill for the first time, the proposed level is insufficient; and on the housing side, both HOME and the Public Housing Capital Fund, which are vital for the rehabilitation and modernization of our country's affordable housing stock, face sharp decreases.

At $700 million, HOME is funded at its lowest level since the program began in 1992, and the Public Housing Capital Fund is funded below the sequester level.

In addition, funding wasn't included to support the installation of positive train control, which could prevent deadly rail accidents like those experienced in New York and Connecticut in recent years. However, I do appreciate that the chairman is committed to addressing this issue if additional resources become available.

While I would have liked this bill to fully support the President's new safe transportation of energy products fund for prevention and response activities across all agencies at DOT that are grappling with the dangers of crude oil transport by rail, I thank the chairman for working with me to include approximately $11 million for the Federal Railroad Administration to support grade crossing safety improvements on rail routes that transport energy products and the hiring of safety staff to monitor the routing of energy products.

There is also $7 million for Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to improve training and outreach efforts related to incident response, along with report language that directs the Department of Transportation to update emergency spill response plans for rail crude oil spills, improve first responder training protocols for spill incidents, and finalize a rule for improving safety standards for crude oil tank cars, like the DOT-111, by the end of September.

I would be remiss if I didn't note my objection to the inclusion of riders on California high-speed rail and on truck weight exemptions. These controversial riders will only hinder the bill's progress through the Congress.

I would note for my colleagues that the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up its transportation and housing bill last week. The Senate bill's allocation was nearly $2.4 billion higher than this bill. As a result, it addresses many of the shortfalls of the bill we consider today.

It is my sincere hope that we can improve this bill in a conference with the Senate before it is signed into law.