Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, a great Georgian, patriot, and personal friend--Rick Richardson, who passed away on November 14th from a sudden stroke.

Rick served the Georgia GOP for 25 years as the president and a national board member of the State Young Republicans, and 4th District chairman.

He had a tremendous impact on his fellow staff, the chairmen of the State Party, and all 159 counties in Georgia through his humble and hard-working attitude.

Rick was not only the party's ``go-to guy'' for history on any level but a great friend to all who knew him.

Rick's father and mother should take great pride in raising a son who touched many lives and will continue to do so in the days ahead.

In return, Rick, who lost his father at a young age, stayed by his surviving mother of 92, whom he cared for and loved.

Today, may we reflect on Rick's singular character and the tremendous work he did for Georgia, his family, and country.

Let us not forget him--a proud son, faithful servant, and example of what it means to be a selfless leader.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, a great Georgian, a patriot, and a great personal friend, and that is Rick Richardson, who passed away on November 14 from a sudden stroke.

Rick served the Georgia GOP for 25 years as the president and a national board member of the Georgia State Young Republicans and the Fourth District Republican Party chairman. He had a tremendous impact on his fellow staff members and the chairman of the State party and all 159 counties of Georgia through his humble and hardworking attitude.

Rick was not only the party's go-to guy for history on any level, but a great friend to all who knew him. Rick's father and mother should take great pride in raising a son who touched so many lives and will continue to do so in the days ahead.

In return, Rick, who lost his father at a young age, stayed by his surviving mother, who is 92 years of age, whom he cared for and loved.

Today, may we reflect on Rick's singular character and the tremendous work he did for the State of Georgia, the Republican Party, his family, and for the country. Let us not forget him, a proud son, faithful servant, an example of what it means to be a selfless leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5544) to increase the understanding of the health effects of low doses of ionizing radiation, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5544, the bill now under consideration.

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

I rise here today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5544, the Low-Dose Radiation Research Act of 2014.

Humans are exposed on a daily basis to much natural background radiation, and some get additional low-dose exposure from medical procedures or from industrial radiation sources; yet sufficient data is not available for experts to definitively conclude whether there are health risks associated with low-dose radiation.

This lack of understanding prevents regulatory agencies from setting more precise radiation dose limits, as well as it impairs authorities' decisionmaking capabilities to address potential radiological events and advise patients for medically-based radiation exposures, all of which pose an unnecessary burden on society.

As a medical doctor, as a family doctor, and a true fiscal conservative, I recognize that this major gap in understanding is detrimental to the health and well-being of Americans and will additionally contribute to unnecessary economic burdens if we do not deal with it immediately.

This legislation seeks to address the limited understanding of potential health risks associated with low-dose radiation by leveraging the Nation's current expertise in low-dose radiation while proposing a long-term strategy to address the current gaps of knowledge in this area.

This legislation will be carried out using funds otherwise already appropriated by law and ensure that the Department of Energy is following congressional direction to focus its work on issues of long- term importance.

Passage of this legislation will help resolve what we do not know in the field of low-dose radiation for the betterment of medicine, for emergency response planning, and for industrial safety, not to speak about helping patients and Americans know what this all entails. This will show that we do not take for granted the livelihood of our fellow Americans.

This bill is a commonsense win, and I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Maryland (Ms. Edwards). I heard her comments, and they are very nice comments. She and I have been friends and sometimes on the opposite sides of issues, but she is a very dear friend and a great lady, and I appreciate her well wishes. I thank you very much. I appreciate that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Georgia Military College as it celebrates its 135th anniversary. I take great pride in representing this historic institution, comprised of a junior college and a separate preparatory school, located in scenic Milledgeville, Georgia.

Once the site of the Georgia state capitol, GMC now is one of only five United States Military Junior Colleges. At the center of its main campus stands the Old Capitol Building where the Georgia General Assembly met from 1807 until 1868 before the capital was moved to Atlanta. As President Emeritus Major General Peter J. Boylan has highlighted, ``It was on the parade on the east plaza that every soldier from Georgia marched before going off to defend our values in war . . . the War of 1812, the Indian Wars, the War with Mexico, and, of course, the Civil War.'' In light of this rich history, it is fitting that the institution's core values are that of Duty, Honor, and Country.

What began in 1879 as Middle Georgia Military and Agricultural College with just 219 students has flourished into an institution with more than 12,000 students enrolled online or at one of its nine campus locations. Nationally recognized as one of the best community colleges, GMC is producing accomplished and well-rounded individuals. It has a highly regarded junior college cadet program that culminates at the end of two years of study with a select few men and women being commissioned as officers in the United States Army. Additionally, it boasts such prestigious graduates as Georgia Governor George Busbee, Coach Bill Yoast of ``Remember the Titans,'' U.S. Secretary of Labor W.J. Usery, and comedian and actor Oliver Hardy. Its alumni include judges, artists, educators, inventors, doctors, aviation pioneers, and thousands of men and women who have served in uniform.

For this reason, and on the occasion of its anniversary, it is my honor to acknowledge the educational leadership of this remarkable institution, under the direction of Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV. Furthermore, I extend my sincere appreciation to the entire Georgia Military College community--students, staff, faculty, alumni, and supporters--for the contributions they have made for more than a century to Georgia and beyond.

Madam Speaker, today 227 years ago on September 17, our Founding Fathers signed our Nation's most precious document, the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states: Congress shall have the power to declare war. The President does not have that power, only Congress.

Congress gives our President the power to defend our country; however, that authority remains subject to checks and balances, particularly by this body.

As such, if the President believes a state of war exists between ourselves and ISIL--the comments made by both the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State indicate that he does--then let him make it constitutional by first coming to Congress and asking for that declaration.

Today, the House will vote on the President's request to authorize assistance to train and arm the Syrian rebels. I have long opposed arming the Syrian opposition out of the fear that these weapons will fall into the hands of Islamic radicals such as ISIL. Rather than supporting relatively unknown opposition groups in Syria to battle these forces, the Islamic State, we must instead turn to our longstanding allies, the Kurds.

The Kurds have shown repeatedly that they have the capacity, the tenacity, and the will to stand up to ISIL. With our support, the Kurdish Peshmerga, together with the Iraqi security forces, will be able to successfully annihilate the evil forces of ISIL.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, if the President wishes to engage this country in military action against ISIL, then I urge him to ask Congress for a declaration of war. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the nation's largest wartime veterans service organization, the American Legion, which was chartered by Congress in 1919 on this date in history. Since then, it has grown to include more than 2.5 million members in over 14,000 American Legion posts worldwide, and its influence is invaluable.

The American Legion supports a variety of programs that benefit the communities in my home state of Georgia and those around the world. As a Marine and retired officer in the Naval Reserves, I am deeply grateful for the Legion's commitment to mentoring youth, advocating patriotism and honor, promoting strong national security, and encouraging continued devotion to fellow service members, veterans, and their families. Therefore, it is my honor to applaud the great work of the American Legion.

Furthermore, it is my privilege to recognize the Wesley Lee Farley American Legion Post 583 and Auxiliary in Eatonton, Georgia. Incorporated in 1952, Post 583 was first comprised of World War II and Korean War veterans, who built the post from the ground up, supported by donated material from the Eatonton community and unending fundraisers by the future Unit 583 Auxiliary. Today, the post proudly presents to qualified students the ``Fannie Pearl Farley Scholarship.'' A charter member, Mrs. Farley served as the 69th Department of Georgia President, which is the highest office in the American Legion Auxiliary, and today she is still an active member of the post.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I express my sincere respect and support for the American Legion, dedicated to upholding the ideals of freedom and democracy, while working to make a difference in the lives of fellow Americans around the world.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States Constitution, article I, section 8, where it enumerates the powers of Congress, one of those powers is, as I am reading, ``to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin.''

In 1913, Congress abdicated its responsibility and its duty over to the Federal Reserve. It is unconstitutional that we have done so, and it has caused some disastrous effects.

I thank my friend Mr. Meadows for yielding me time to speak on behalf of H.R. 24, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, better known as ``Audit the Fed.''

This is the same bill that passed the U.S. House in the 112th Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. This is a vital piece of legislation that will help to usher in a new era of transparency in this Nation's monetary policy, and I am pleased to speak on its behalf with my colleagues.

Over the century, since its inception in 1913, the Federal Reserve has controlled our Nation's monetary policy--and therefore our economy--under a veil of secrecy. Throughout these last 100 years, Congress has only exercised a relatively small degree of oversight over the Federal Reserve. This lack of accountability has led to grievous consequences, and this must end.

For instance, since the Federal Reserve establishment in 1913, the value of the U.S. dollar has fallen 95 percent. In other words, the value of today's dollar is approximately worth one nickel of what a dollar was worth in 1913. What this does is cause a dramatic decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, and it is driven by the easy money policies of the Federal Reserve.

What does this mean in practical terms for the American people?

The steady decline of the U.S. dollar punishes thrift and savings, erodes the value of those savings, and harms older Americans living on fixed incomes. Just as bad, the expansion in money supply under the Federal Reserve has led to an unstable environment of booms and busts that have wrecked the financial security and stability of average Americans. This hurts poor people and senior citizens and the middle class the absolute most. Rich people will do fine with the policies of the Federal Reserve's. Wall Street bankers and the big money folks are fine, but the policies of the Federal Reserve hurt poor folks, they hurt senior citizens, and they hurt the middle class. It is not fair.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet has grown at an unprecedented rate, and it now contains $4 trillion worth of assets. At the same time, the enactment of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law has granted the Federal Reserve a greater role than ever in managing our economy and in overseeing the regulation of our financial system. Yet, in spite of the undeniable importance of the Federal Reserve, current law specifically prohibits audits of the Federal Reserve's deliberations, discussions, or actions on monetary policy.

In 2011, a partial audit of the Federal Reserve, required by the Dodd-Frank law, found that the Fed had loaned $16 trillion to financial institutions, some of which were not even American, between 2007 and 2010. This incredible sum was quietly loaned out with no public notice and no congressional oversight. If this is the sort of activity brought to light by just a partial audit, then I believe this further highlights the absolute necessity of a full audit. This bill will require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and of the Federal Reserve banks within 12 months of enactment.

The Federal Reserve is a creation of Congress, and it must therefore be subject to the oversight and regulation of Congress.

I must recognize and commend the leadership and years of work by my friend and colleague, Dr. Ron Paul, on this important issue. In the last Congress, Dr. Paul's bill amassed a bipartisan coalition that saw this legislation pass in a 327-98 vote. I am deeply honored to carry on this legacy of Dr. Paul's.

I urge my colleagues here in the House to support this important piece of legislation, and I urge our friends in the Senate to take up this bill's counterpart by my medical colleague, Senator Rand Paul's S. 209.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Colonel David J. Wilkie, who is retiring after 30 years of Active Duty Service in the United States Army. The valuable leadership demonstrated in his role as Chief of the Neuroscience and Rehabilitation Center at Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC) is indispensable. His position there represents the culmination of a career that has been defined by a drive for excellence.

During his time at the United States Military Academy at West Point, COL Wilkie was a four year distinguished cadet, wearing a star on his collar indicating his rank in the top five percent of his class. In 1987, he was elected by his classmates to the position of Chairman of the Cadet Honor Committee and served on the Brigade Staff as a First Class Cadet. He graduated in 1988, receiving the Army Medical Department Award for the highest academically ranking cadet entering the AMEDD and the General McClellan award for the Chairman of the Cadet Honor Committee.

After graduation from West Point, COL Wilkie completed the AMEDD Officer Basic Course at Fort Sam Houston, Texas and earned a degree of Doctor of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. From there, he completed his internship and residency in Neurology at Madigan Army Medical Center. COL Wilkie has been Board Certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology since 1997, scoring in the top five percent nationally on his board Certification exam.

An expert in his field, COL Wilkie has served in leadership positions on staff at DDEAMC and Madigan Army Medical Center, on numerous prestigious boards and committees and important response teams. COL Wilkie led the development of the DDEAMC Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) program, and the Level 1 TBI program at DDEAMC was the first program certified by the Office of the Surgeon General in 2009. COL Wilkie was also instrumental in developing the Integrated Pain Management Clinic at DDEAMC, again the first such program active in the Department of Defense.

Additionally, COL Wilkie served as Battalion Surgeon for 2-3 Infantry Battalion in Mosul, Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2004. In 2013, he served as US FORCES-Afghanistan Neurology consultant at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. His decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal (3 OLC), Navy Achievement Medal, Army Achievement Medal (2 OLC), National Defense Service Medal with bronze star, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary and Service Medals, Army Service Ribbon, NATO Medal, Air Assault Badge and Combat Medic Badge.

COL Wilkie truly has made leadership and service his calling. In his own community, he coaches little league sports, participates in medical education programs, serves on the St. Teresa of Avila Parish Council, and operates the Parish Angel Gabriel Message charity, an organization he founded that supports local families facing childhood cancer.

In a profession that is saturated with talent, intelligence, and leadership, COL Wilkie has managed to distinguish himself among his peers. For this reason, on behalf of the United States Congress, it is my honor to applaud the great work of Colonel David Wilkie following three decades of outstanding service to the United States Armed Forces.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply gathers the arbitrary budget increases of $5,000 added to seven under secretaries' offices and one assistant secretary's office, totaling $40,000, and it applies that amount to the spending reduction account.

What would a $5,000 increase to the budget of the office of an under secretary even pay for? Would it pay for one taxpayer-funded trip? for pencils? for paper clips? maybe pay raises to the Federal bureaucrats to implement the nearly $1 trillion new farm bill?

According to the Web site wallstcheatsheet.com, a person can start a business for $5,000 or less in overhead; but, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is not a business, and it does not run like one, unfortunately, as $5,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the accounts we are considering today.

This increase is a symbol of this government's out-of-control spending. Both political parties are guilty. If Congress can't cut $40,000, then we are facing the root of our spending problem--thousands of dollars can quickly add up to millions, which would soon become billions, and all the while, Congress keeps approving more and more even when there is no good reason for the increase.

The American people have demanded that we cut the outrageous spending that is going on here in Washington by Republicans and Democrats alike. We must look to every corner of the budget to do so. We must become better stewards of taxpayers' dollars, and this amendment is one small step in that right direction.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would reduce the funding for the USDA's Economic Research Service by $7,726,000 and increase the spending reduction account by that same amount.

This amendment would maintain, I repeat, maintain current funding levels, while helping to end the duplicative research the USDA is currently conducting.

The Economic Research Service makes social science inquiries into the nutritional choices of citizens, as well as farmers' decisions to participate in risk management programs. According to the USDA, this program is ``the primary source of statistical indicators of the farm sector,'' and it is the only USDA research agency based entirely in D.C., according to the Congressional Research Service.

However, there is a second agency within the USDA, the National Agricultural Statistics Agency, which serves essentially the same purpose. This agency is funded at $169,371,000 in this bill.

But wait, Mr. Chairman. The underlying bill also provides $1.2 billion in mandatory spending for research, education, and economics studies, the same function as the Economic Research Service and the National Agricultural Statistics Agency.

Mr. Chairman, we are in an economic and fiscal emergency. The Federal Government spends too much money. It is irresponsible to keep spending money beyond our means. Not only do we need to reduce our deficit, but we need to begin to make an impact on eliminating the huge debt that has been accumulating over the last several years.

I applaud the Appropriations Committee for bringing to the floor five appropriations bills in roughly the same number of weeks. In fact, we haven't seen this particular bill here in the House since 2011.

I offered a similar amendment to this one during the consideration of that bill, to cut $7 million from the Economic Research Service.

So I ask my colleagues, let's try again. Let's cut the duplicative spending that is in this bill for that agency. Let's make meaningful cuts to show the American people that we are serious about controlling spending and serious about the future of our country. I urge support of my amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

In this bill, we are appropriating $1.2 billion of mandatory spending to gather data for research education and economic studies.

Is there any reason why, within that $1.2 billion of getting data, that they cannot do the same function as we are with the Economic Research Service?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) be listed as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would eliminate all funding provided in the bill for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.

Across the United States, 11,000 dams have been constructed in local communities under this program for the purpose of mitigating flood conditions. Most of these dams were built in the 1940s and 1950s, and thousands of them are suspected to be in need of attention. Of this amount, only about 120 dams have been repaired so as to extend their use into modern times. Indeed, given the advances of engineering technology in the last 50 years, these refurbished dams may last well into the next century, but Federal funding to maintain these many-State infrastructure projects is simply not sustainable.

Under the farm bill passed earlier this year, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program was authorized to receive both increased mandatory as well as discretionary funding. However, the President has not requested funding for this program in over 3 years, in large part because he recognizes that the responsibility to maintain these projects must ultimately fall on the local project sponsors. Likewise, over in the Senate, zero dollars has been provided via discretionary spending in recent years; and according to the Congressional Research Service, it is expected that the mandatory spending will ultimately be canceled permanently. In fact, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program has never been allowed to spend mandatory funding.

So why is the House falling all over itself to fund this program?

Mr. Chairman, as long as the Federal Government is involved in this dam program, the process of identifying problem dams and implementing rehabilitation plans will be much like everything else the Federal Government undertakes. It will be slow, painstaking, and way too expensive.

In my home State of Georgia, we have many dams that we depend on to mitigate heavy rains and prevent floods. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I agree with the President here. I don't agree with him sometimes, and I do agree with him many times, but in this place, I agree with him in that we ought to leave the maintenance of

these projects to the States. They know better than the Federal Government what works for their communities.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which is to limit spending money that we just don't have.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, is very erudite in his discussion against my amendment, but the facts are these: there is $250 million authorized in the farm bill--in his own bill. In this bill, there is $92 million in mandatory spending that is being appropriated, and I am not touching debt whatsoever. The mandatory spending has never gone out.

I certainly know about farm dams and how flood control works. In fact, back in 1994, I was living in Americus, Georgia--I was practicing medicine there--and we had a hurricane that parked itself right over Americus, Georgia. In a 24-hour period, we had 25 inches of rain, and 30 people died in southwest Georgia because of the upstream dams' failing one by one in a fashion that was just like dominoes that were falling over. The water ran into Lake Blackshear, Georgia. Then it went from there down to Albany, Georgia, and there was a tremendous flood in Albany. All of southwest Georgia got flooded, and 30 people were killed because of it.

I certainly know about that, and I have a great feeling for that, but the problem is that the mandatory spending has never been spent. What I am doing in my amendment is just striking the $25 million extra in discretionary spending. I believe that we ought to repair those dams. We need to help make sure that we have some flood mitigation, but we are not utilizing the authorized money or the appropriated money appropriately.

We are in an economic emergency as a nation. Let's utilize our money from a fiscally sane perspective. That is what I am trying to do, and I encourage the acceptance of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the amount appropriated for the operating grants to Amtrak by $340 million and increase the spending reduction account by the same amount. This reduction would eliminate all operating funds for Amtrak.

My amendment to some might be quite harsh, but I suspect that my colleagues who support Amtrak will argue that since the underlying bill keeps funding at concurrent levels, we should leave the embattled entity alone.

But the committee report for this bill gives us plenty of reasons why we shouldn't allow Amtrak to continue at the status quo.

The first sentence in the committee report says:

Amtrak runs a deficit each year and requires a Federal

subsidy to cover both operating losses and capital

improvements.

A couple of paragraphs later it says:

Although the Northeast corridor is profitable, the

federally mandated services such as long-distance and State-

supported routes sustain large losses that cannot be overcome

by Amtrak's profitable services.

Let's talk about the long-distance routes, Mr. Chairman.

According to Amtrak's fiscal year 2013 ridership tables, the long- distance routes experienced the highest ridership in 20 years at 4.8 million passengers. That sounds pretty good. But despite this growth, these routes still lost $587 million last year. In other words, for every passenger who traveled on one of Amtrak's long-distance routes last year, Amtrak lost $122.29.

If you found a good deal on Priceline, we might be able to actually cut our losses by buying these passengers one-way airline tickets, and they would get to their destinations much more quickly.

I wish I could say that this was the extent of Amtrak's failures. Unfortunately, I can't.

Let's go back to the committee report. The report also addresses Amtrak's notoriously wasteful food and beverage service, which lost an estimated $73 million in fiscal year 2013 alone. Over the last 5 years, food and beverage service has been responsible for approximately $387 million in total losses, on top of the long-distance losses.

Look at the fine print. The committee points out that Amtrak routinely cooks its books to make these losses look better, usually by transferring amounts from first class tickets onto the food and beverage accounts. The current Amtrak inspector general has reported that these transfers have increased by more than $22 million between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2012.

So while the topline numbers make it look as though the food and beverage losses have gotten slightly less over the past year, with current estimated cost recovery at a paltry 65 percent, these numbers can't be trusted in the least.

Had enough, Mr. Chairman?

Let me leave you with one final thought: Amtrak is losing money hand over fist. They are cooking their books. There is not an end in sight.

How much do you suppose Amtrak's food and beverage service employees are paid annually? According to the committee report, these 1,200 employees are paid an average $106,000 a year.

Amtrak is a pseudo-private entity with priorities that are way, way out of whack, and it will not become solvent, it will not right itself, until Congress steps up and says enough is enough, and now is the time for enough.

I urge my colleagues to join me and send Amtrak a message that its mismanagement should come to an end and that it is intolerable to us and the U.S. taxpayers.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is along the same lines as the amendment I just offered, only it would reduce Amtrak operating grants by a paltry amount of only $34 million or just a 10 percent reduction.

In offering my last amendment, I laid out a number of reasons why Amtrak has failed to be a good steward of taxpayers' money.

I understand that many of my colleagues might not want to fully defund this entity, so I am now asking that we join together and send a message to Amtrak leadership, a smaller message, but a strong one nonetheless.

I am asking my colleagues to tell Amtrak that we will not continue to reward bad behavior and that, when we ask for reform, we expect real reform to begin and take place--not fuzzy numbers, not misleading reports, not sky-high employee salaries, but real, honest reform.

Amtrak has struggled for way too long under the status quo. It is time to send them a message.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, two of my colleagues just came asking to increase the Community Development Block Grant program by $100 million, and actually, the bill itself has an increase above the President's request by $200 million.

Sometimes, I agree with the President, and sometimes, I don't; and this is one time I do agree with the President. The President only requested $2.8 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program, and this bill would appropriate $3 billion.

So my amendment would remove the $200 million increase over the Obama administration's FY 2015 budgetary request--and only increase--from the Community Development Block Grant program and transfer that amount to the spending reduction account. Why the committee has chosen to go above and beyond what even the President has requested fails me.

Mr. Chairman, the Community Development Block Grant program is one of the most wasteful and ineffective programs found within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It was originally proposed by President Gerald Ford in his effort to revitalize decaying and low- income neighborhoods in American cities and towns.

Unfortunately, CDBG has strayed from its original purpose. Today, many of these grants have been diverted to wasteful, parochial projects, such as funding a pet shampoo company, issuing risky business loans, paying for renovation of a wealthy multinational architectural company, and I can go on and on.

I am not asking that we eliminate this program or even drastically cut its funding. Mr. Chairman, I am simply asking that we do not increase this funding above what the President has asked for and that we put the rest of this large increase toward paying down our Nation's debt. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will try again. This amendment is much like my previous amendment.

As I noted before, this bill provides for a $200 million increase above the President's request in the Community Development Block Grant program, by his request, the President's request, the Democratic President's request for the FY 2015 budget.

My previous amendment would have removed that $200 million increase above the President's request in its entirety. This amendment just cuts 10 percent of that increase above the President's request, $20 million--which is a lot of money to most Georgians, it seems to be not a lot of money around here, but it is a lot of money to me--and it transfers that sum to the spending reduction account.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier about wasteful spending being funded by the Community Development Block Grant program, and I would like to take this opportunity to provide some examples.

The State of Nebraska has directed approximately $500,000 in taxpayer funds, hard-earned money, from the CDBG grant program to a pet shampoo company.

The State of Vermont has directed $255,000 of its Federally-funded Community Development Block Grant to support a program for graduates for the Center of Cartoon Studies.

The Community Development Block Grant program has provided $356,000 to pay for infrastructure improvements for a meat snack manufacturer that makes beef jerky.

Mr. Chairman, I love pets--particularly dogs--I love cartoons, and I really like beef jerky, and I like these things as much as anyone, but I fail to see how it is appropriate for the Federal Government to provide taxpayer money to fund these projects.

Again, I am not asking to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant program or even cut its funding below the FY 2014 levels.

Obviously, my amendment to cut out the increase above the President's requested amount to CDBG failed. Now, I am just asking to cut out just 20 percent of that increase above the President's level.

So if my colleagues cannot bring themselves to cut the entire $200 million increase over the President's budget request, then let's cut at least one small percentage of that increase, just 10 percent, and save the American taxpayers $20 million. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will remove the $7 million increase over current spending levels, this year, fiscal year 2014 funding levels, to the rental housing assistance account to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and transfer that amount to the spending reduction account.

I understand that times are tough nationwide. They are tough for families, they are tough for businesses, and everyone has had to cut back. Unfortunately, the fact remains that we as our Nation are in an incredible amount of debt. It is an unsustainable amount of debt.

Let me be clear, I am not asking that we cut funding for this program at all above this year's level. I am just asking that we simply hold the line--fund what we have been funding, not increase it, as proposed by this legislation.

I think it is irresponsible to continue expanding programs without being able to pay for them. We are in an economic emergency as a Nation. We are headed to an economic collapse of America if we don't stop spending money that we don't have. We have to restore fiscal sanity to Washington.

I am just asking that we hold the line on this program. Cut the $7 million increase that is proposed. I think that is reasonable. It is not a cut over current funding; it is holding the line.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce Amtrak's Office of the Inspector General by $1 million and increase the spending reduction account by that same amount.

This reduction would eliminate a proposed increase to that account, keeping the funding level just like it is today for the coming year.

I spoke about Amtrak's failings at length during the consideration of the first title of this bill.

Amtrak consistently runs at a massive operating deficit. The long- distance routes are continually in the red, and the food and beverage service only nets a 65 percent return on what it spends despite paying its staff six-figure salaries, which is way above what the average American can expect to make in salary.

My colleagues who support Amtrak--and maybe even some who don't--will likely say that, if any part of this embattled entity deserves more funding, it is the inspector general. And, yes, the Office of the Inspector General has rooted out some fraud, and it has discovered some significant overpayments, but, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that health benefits fraud and overpayments are things that are just the tip of a very large and very obvious iceberg.

It is not some great mystery why Amtrak is hemorrhaging money. The long-distance routes lose incredible amounts of money, and taxpayers are being bilked for this tremendous amount of loss. It is breathtaking, really, that we continue to turn a blind eye to more than a half a billion dollars lost year after year just to sustain these routes which carry fewer than 5 million passengers annually. That number may sound large, but meanwhile, in 2012, there were more than 815 million ticketed airline passengers in the United States.

How about the food and beverage service on Amtrak trains?

Over the last 5 years, this service has resulted in nearly $400 million in losses. Yes, the Office of the Inspector General does decent work, and I commend the Office for exposing and admitting Amtrak's history of cooking its books to make the losses sustained by these long-distance routes and the food and beverage service look slightly less awful than they actually are; but in this time of fiscal emergency, I think it would be prudent to tell the Amtrak OIG to work on the obvious issues first. Take care of the big problems before hiring new staff to look for new issues that are dwarfed by what we already know.

I urge the support of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Office of Science and Technology Policy by $1 million and apply that amount to the spending reduction account.

As chairman of the House Science Oversight Subcommittee, it has come to my attention that there is, or at least was, an Affordable Care Act Information Technology Exchanges Steering Committee, chaired by White House officials and established in May 2012, almost a year and a half before the rollout of healthcare.gov.

That White House Steering Committee's charter explicitly directed the formulation of working groups, including one on security. It also turns out that a cochairman of this ObamaCare Web site Steering Committee is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Mr. Todd Park.

Upon learning this, I, as chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, along with full committee Chairman Smith, and Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Dr. Bucshon, sent a December 20, 2013, letter to the White House requesting that Mr. Park make himself available to the committee to answer questions regarding the security issues with healthcare.gov by January 10.

As we stand here today, OSTP has ignored the committee's request for Mr. Park to testify and has done so three times. Don't the American people deserve answers from those who are in charge of overseeing the implementation of the ObamaCare Web site's security protocol? After all, Mr. Park is a deputy to OSTP Director Holdren.

But when asked at a March 26, 2014, hearing before the Science Committee about Mr. Park's refusal to testify, Director Holdren stated that Todd Park ``doesn't report to me. I can't compel him to come and testify.''

Well, if he does not report to the OSTP director, why are he and his Office of the Chief Technology Officer an

official part of the Office of Science and Technology Policy that the OSTP director supposedly directs, manages, and supports?

If Mr. Todd Park does not, in fact, report to OSTP, then his office should not be funded by OSTP, and I seek now, through this amendment to make that correction immediately.

I offered a similar amendment, which passed by a voice vote, during the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology markup of H.R. 4186, the FIRST Act.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work this out. Of course, we don't have time to come back with another amendment. I suspect, as soon as we finish with this one, we will move forward, but I would like to work with you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the ranking member, to try to find something.

Mr. Holdren says Mr. Park doesn't answer to him, and supposedly, this guy is a member of the OSTP staff, and he has refused to come before our Oversight Committee. We just have to find some way. If he is not part of OSTP, why should we fund anything dealing with what he is doing there? That is the point of this.

Will the gentleman yield?

Would you agree to a $150,000 cut?

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate that. The question we have--we have asked Mr. Park to come three times, and then we had Mr. Holdren come to the full committee, and Mr. Park is in OSTP, and Mr. Holdren is chairman of OSTP, and he said Mr. Park doesn't work for him.

So if he doesn't work for him, then why should we be paying salary and expenses and things like that? That is the point.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the offer of both gentlemen to work with me. It is our responsibility in Congress to have oversight. I am the chairman of the Oversight Committee on Science, Space and Technology. We have had tremendous problems with not only this department, but many others, in getting people to come and just tell us what is going on, to testify before our committee.

We have been rebuffed and rebuffed time and time again, ignored time and time again by this administration. This is the only way I see to get at these people.

I appreciate that.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would cut about $67 million from the National Science Foundation's appropriations increase--again, increase; not reduce their funding, but reduce the increase--and apply that amount to the spending reduction account.

The cuts in this amount are to four areas not directly involved in basic research such as construction, education and human resources, agency operations, and the Office of the National Science Board.

In 2007 and again in 2010, NSF was granted funding to launch new STEM education programs under the America COMPETES Act, not to mention the Recovery Act stimulus with the same focus.

Unfortunately, the U.S. continues to fall behind in producing enough STEM workers to compete globally, and our high school graduates' math and science scores are stagnant.

A 2013 GAO study found that 209 different Federal STEM education programs overlap across 13 agencies, spending a total of $3 billion--$3 billion, with a b. GAO also found that 173 of these programs shared similarities in objectives and focus.

The underlying committee report acknowledges program reductions and consolidation and yet increases spending on education and human resources by $29.5 million for an abandoned program that will be taken over by existing programs.

More often than not, increasing Federal Government spending on non- research science initiatives grows the Federal Government, not just the next generation of scientists.

Today, we are the world's leader in combined Federal as well as private sector investment in research and development, at last estimate, $465 billion for 2014.

Some are worried that China will catch up to our spending by the 2020s. Of course, those making that assumption also estimate that both the U.S. and China will be spending $600 billion each by 2022. Is Federal spending a race in which we want to engage with China?

National government expenditure per capita on R&D in China is $218 per capita--again, research and development in China is $218 compared to the U.S. per person amount of $1,276. This is not sustainable.

As the science community can attest, Congress often overpromises on funding and pulls the rug out on projects halfway through.

NSF is sitting on unnecessary and outmoded facilities without needed action on whether to close and sell. NSF should not be given more money for new facilities until it is established that NSF is operating existing facilities efficiently and effectively.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, in closing, I am not cutting basic research here at all. I am suggesting cuts in the directorate.

There are just silly things that they have--the Climate Change Narrative Game, for instance, and the climate change media exhibition that portrays scientists and students at work in Amazonia, which is the indoctrination of young girls. There is ``The Matter of Origins.'' I could go on and on.

I believe in research. I am an applied scientist, and I am a physician. We are not cutting research. In fact, I believe in research, yet what we are doing is just trying to cut the directorate and save the taxpayers money.

We are broke as a Nation, and we have just got to stop spending money at random and without, really, responsibility. I encourage the acceptance of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am a family physician and an addictionologist. Marijuana is addicting if it is used improperly. But used medically, and there are very valid medical reasons to utilize extracts or products from marijuana in medical procedures, it is a very valid medical use under the direction of a doctor. It is actually less dangerous than some narcotics that doctors prescribe all over this country.

Also, this is a states' rights, states' power issue, because many States across the country--in fact, my own State of Georgia is considering allowing the medical use under the direction of a physician. This is a states' rights, Tenth Amendment issue. We need to reserve the states' powers under the Constitution.

Please support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds from being used for the loan guarantee program created by the America COMPETES Act of 2010, a program which is essentially an $84 billion science experiment in stimulus spending.

The America COMPETES Act directed the Commerce Department to establish loan guarantees within the Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing program of the Economic Development Administration, or

Mr. Chairman, during the public comment period, there was absolutely zero interest in this program--zero. The SBA already does this. I am all for manufacturing. I am all for small and medium businesses. But we do not need this program. It is an $84 billion program with no interest in it within small or medium businesses. Not one loan has been given out. All it has done is fund the bureaucrats that are established to do this program, and no loans have been made since 2010. In 4 years, zero loans, zero interest. We need to eliminate it.

I yield back the balance of my time.