Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lois Gerage- Lamb, a dedicated educator at Lakewood Elementary in Dallas, Texas who is retiring this year.

After moving to Lakewood in the early 1980s, Lois joined the staff at Lakewood Elementary in 1987. Her twenty-four years of service speak loudly of her patience, dedication, and passion for teaching. Both of my sons, Bill and Alex, had the privilege of having Lois as their teacher. Her commitment to providing students with a quality education was evident in her work ethic and enthusiasm. Known for her upbeat personality and ``can-do'' philosophy, Lois has instilled confidence in her students and inspired them to reach for their dreams.

Outside of the classroom, Lois is a well-known community leader. She currently serves as the President of Little People of America, Inc. (LPA), a national advocacy and support group for dwarfs and their families. In this capacity, she has oversees the 6,000 member organization and works tirelessly to raise awareness. Lois is a demonstrated leader with tremendous strength and great fervor and compassion.

She will be greatly missed at Lakewood Elementary. I am thankful for dedicated educators like Lois and for the positive impact they have on our children. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing Lois for her service. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kenneth H. Cooper, M.D., M.P.H., my friend, renowned physician, and the Father of Aerobics.

The importance of cardiovascular exercise and fitness in our world today can be attributed to the dedicated efforts of Dr. Cooper. Throughout his career, Dr. Cooper has focused on preventive medicine and his work has revolutionized the physical fitness world. Aside from working with the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) to create a fitness program for astronauts and designing the ``Cooper test'' used by the military to assess fitness, Dr. Cooper also trained the 1970 Brazilian soccer team to a World Cup victory. At the local, national, and international levels, Dr. Cooper has educated numerous individuals about the importance of diet and exercise and motivated them to adopt healthy lifestyles. He is also aggressively combating the childhood obesity epidemic with the Our Kids' Health initiative and by working with legislators to bring physical education back into our schools. The impact of Dr. Cooper's work spans across the globe; I know he has made our world a healthier place.

His family, friends, colleagues, and patients will gather to honor him at Health Needs a Hero on May 22, 2011 in Austin, Texas. I am delighted to join them in recognizing Dr. Cooper's many achievements and contributions to the health and medical fields. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Cooper.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 203 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 203 provides for a structured rule designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 910. This rule allows for 12 amendments--that is, 12 amendments, Madam Speaker--submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, including the open process that is taking place, not just in the Rules Committee, but also on the floor, where Members will be allowed to come and debate these 12 amendments, as opposed to a closed rule with no amendments.

This legislation, introduced by the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), has gone through regular order. There were hearings held on this issue. H.R. 910 was marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, provided for a structured amendment process for 12 additional Democrat amendments to be considered.

The bill we are discussing today, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would stop the Environmental Protection Agency--also known as EPA--from imposing a national energy tax in the form of carbon emission regulations.

Today, I will explain what the underlying bill does, and I will discuss the EPA's agenda, what this agenda would do to the Nation's job market and economy, the need for a stronger energy policy from not just our President, but also from the administration and also, as the guidepost that begins with this legislation today, from the United States Congress on behalf of the American people.

H.R. 910 prohibits the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and repeals the steps the agency has already taken to begin this process. In this bill, we only focus on greenhouse gases and we leave EPA's authority to monitor and regulate pollutants intact.

In short, the underlying bill clarifies that the Clean Air Act is not a vehicle for regulatory taxing. The decision about whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases should be made by Congress and only by Congress, not the regulatory body of a President who wishes to place his overriding answers on unelected bureaucrats to fulfill this role.

The EPA has been aggressively pursuing a national cap-and-tax energy agenda through regulation and legislation for years.

After cap-and-trade failed in Congress last year, the EPA accelerated its efforts to regulate this controversial policy through a series of new rules on hundreds of thousands of buildings all across the United States. In other words, because the President couldn't get his political agenda through Congress, he's taking his political agenda in the administration to overlay the American people.

We disagree with that, and that is why we are on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

Regulating greenhouse gas emissions--primarily the carbon dioxide emissions that come from coal, oil, and natural gas--will increase the cost of everything from gasoline to household utilities and, of course, groceries.

Additionally, regulating and taxing emissions will ship American jobs overseas to countries that understand and recognize stable, affordable and energy policies that are vital for their economic growth.

According to a letter from the Chamber of Commerce on March 9 of last year to the Energy and Commerce Committee: ``These regulations will impose significant burden across the United States economy, including sectors that will create jobs and lead us in our economic recovery.''

Additionally, the letter references that the American Council for Capital Formation has ``estimated that EPA's greenhouse gas regulations could reduce business investment between $97 billion and $290 billion in 2011 and as much as $309 billion in 2014,'' a tremendous hit on the economy when it comes from the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his administration. This is not a way for America or our future to be successful.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity also references the American Council for Capital Formation in a press release just last month that estimates that a greenhouse gas tax ``could result in the loss of between 476,000 to 1.4 million jobs.''

Republicans are committed to putting Americans back to work, and our Democratic colleagues continue to pursue a reckless agenda that puts more Americans out of work, drives business overseas--all the while limiting U.S. energy production and use.

So, Madam Speaker, today the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives with good news not just for the taxpayers but for the American people, in particular, not just consumers, but those who have lost their job or who are underemployed. We believe that what we're doing today is a jobs-saver bill.

The House Natural Resources Committee reported last month that the Obama administration policies have caused domestic oil production to drop by 16 percent versus projected levels and future projections show continued decreases in domestic production and more foreign imports to make up for this difference.

A recent Rasmussen poll from March 3, 2011, shows that three-quarters of Americans believe this country does not do enough to develop its own oil and gas resources.

So whether through greenhouse gas regulation permit delays or permitting moratoriums, which the President stands behind in his administration, this administration should change their policies and their direction.

We must find new sources of energy and not tax those that exist for the freedom of this country.

So while energy prices soar and continue to soar and projections estimate a $5-a-gallon gasoline by summertime, this administration wants to inflict more costs on consumers.

The bill today would help to ease the cost of energy prices. It would assist in the global competitiveness of America.

It would help ensure that this Nation does not lose millions of more jobs and does not threaten the intent of the Clean Air Act.

No, Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is here because this is yet another opportunity at a jobs bill that is pro-consumer and pro the American people who want and need to be able to help in a desperate time when we're losing our jobs and things are tough back home to do something positive on behalf of the American public.

This is a bipartisan bill that provides good policy for our Nation, and we're asking every single Member of Congress to understand clearly and see this for what it is. It is a jobs-protection bill.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Beaumont, Texas, Judge Poe.

I appreciate the gentleman engaging me in a colloquy, and I will just give him a straight answer.

We did not offer any waivers. All 12 amendments offered by Democrats were germane. This, and perhaps others that were submitted to the Rules Committee, were not germane to the House rules, so we did not offer any waiver. But the others that we did, the 12, were all germane and did not have to have a waiver.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of our brand- new freshmen, a gentleman who is not only on what is called an A committee but an exclusive committee of the United States Congress, who has had a distinguished career as a sheriff in Florida and who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, there was a dialogue back and forth about cows, cattle, and that the EPA really is not after that issue. But if you go to the EPA Web site, epa.gov, and you look under the portion called ``Frequent Questions'' where it deals with livestock, in fact, the EPA is trying to talk about methane produced by livestock. And it ends up saying, as I read from my BlackBerry, that essentially 20 percent of all the methane content in the air comes from livestock.

Well, that's what they want to regulate, which means they would get in the business whether we said this or not.

The gentleman will have his own time in a minute, and I'm sure he will be very effective.

But I encourage the gentleman to get on his BlackBerry and go to the Web site and look this up. They're going to blame it on cattle. They're going to tax cattle. They're going to tax the output because that's what they are proposing.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my, oh my, we've heard this tirade before. If it wasn't just Republicans and the House, which we've had now for about 4 months, it was something else. The Democrats are looking for somebody to blame their woes on, their tax increases, their overregulation, all the big spending and the debt. Madam Speaker, we know what it is. If they search quickly enough, they can find out what the American people know: It is pin the tail on the donkey. We know how this happened.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about 1.4 million jobs, a lot of cattle, and a lot of bull.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Melbourne, Florida (Mr. Posey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, there was a discussion a few minutes ago about Republicans and oil companies and a lot of very interesting comments. Yet many on our side have alluded to President Obama supporting the Brazilian Government and people by supporting their oil drilling, drilling for natural resources that they have. The President is willing to go down and back up a 2009 commitment to proposing $2 billion from the Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian company that is their energy company.

And I would like to quote what he said, if I can, because I think it's very interesting: ``At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect prices, the United States could not be happier for a new, stable source of energy.''

Madam Speaker, what he just spoke of was the United States' ability to produce our own oil so we don't have to look to foreigners to get that done.

[From The Hill, Mar. 21, 2011]

Overnight Energy: Republicans Pounce on Obama's Brazilian Oil Support

(By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman)

State of Play: Republicans and the oil industry are working

to translate President Obama's weekend comments in support of

Brazilian oil development into political ammunition in their

battle against the White House's U.S. drilling policies.

The American Petroleum Institute, the country's most

powerful oil and gas trade association, and Republicans,

including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Monday

that the administration should be doing more to develop U.S.

oil-and-gas reserves.

Here's Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who is among the

lawmakers pushing for wider U.S. offshore drilling: ``It's

ridiculous to ignore our own resources and continue going

hat-in-hand to countries like Saudi Arabia and Brazil to beg

them to produce more oil,'' Vitter said in a statement. ``We

need to get serious about developing our resources here at

home and working toward lower gas prices and long-term energy

independence.''

But President Obama said Saturday during his visit to

Brazil that an energy partnership with the nation will offer

major benefits for the United States. Obama, in announcing a

``Strategic Energy Dialogue'' with Brazil, noted that the

country has nearly twice the oil reserves as the United

States and lauded its stability compared to some other oil-

exporting countries.

``We want to work with you. We want to help with technology

and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when

you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best

customers,'' Obama told a group of business leaders Saturday.

``At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability

in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the

United States could not be happier with the potential for a

new, stable source of energy.''

Under the Strategic Energy Dialogue, the United States will

work with Brazil ``in the environmentally responsible and

technologically advanced development'' of Brazilian oil

resources, according to a White House summary of the plan.

Administration officials also say they are working

diligently to expand U.S. oil-and-gas development. The

Interior Department has recently issued three deepwater

drilling permits for the type of projects halted after last

year's Gulf oil spill. And the department on Monday approved

an exploration plan that paves the way to expanded Gulf

drilling.

Still, it's not the first time Republicans have criticized

the administration for its oil dealings with Brazil. Vitter

and others railed against a 2009 proposed $2 billion

commitment from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian

oil company Petrobras to ensure the purchase of U.S. goods as

the company explores for oil.

Many Republican claims about the Export-Import proposal

have been shown to be overblown.

Forbes ran a handy fact-check Monday on Republicans' claims

about the proposed Petrobras loans. And the Export-Import

Bank takes on Republican charges here.

Progress and setbacks at stricken Japanese nuke plant

``Tokyo Electric Power Co. continued to report progress in

restoring order at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors,

but finishing the job is turning out to be a painstaking

process plagued by damaged equipment and unexpected

incidents,'' The Wall Street Journal reports.

Court ruling hits California climate program

``California did not adequately consider alternatives to

its plan to create a cap-and-trade market for carbon

emissions, a judge ruled on Monday, throwing a wrench into

the most aggressive U.S. effort to combat climate change,''

Reuters reports.

U.S., Chile strike green deals

President Obama's trip to South America is bearing green

fruit, according to the White House, which is touting

expansion of work with Chile on energy and climate change.

The White House noted several areas of cooperation. Under

the existing Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas,

``the United States intends to support the establishment of a

regional research network for glacier monitoring and modeling

led by Chile's world-class researchers,'' the White House

said.

``This network will inform policy and decisionmaking by

providing a more robust understanding of how glacial retreat

will impact water security in Andean glacier countries,'' a

summary states.

President Obama lauded the various areas of cooperation

during a press conference with Chilean President Sebastian

Pinera. ``I want to commend President Pinera for agreeing to

take another step, hosting a new center to address glacier

melt in the Andes. In addition, a new U.S.-Chile energy

business council will encourage collaborations between our

companies in areas like energy efficiency and renewable

technologies,'' Obama said at a joint news conference in

Santiago.

Three days ago the two nations also inked a formal

``memorandum of understanding'' on peaceful uses of nuclear

energy.

House vote on pesticides looms

House lawmakers will vote next week on a bill to limit the

Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over pesticide applications.

The Hill's Floor Action blog reports:

The House is expected to take up legislation next week that

would reverse a court decision that said pesticide use is

regulated by the Clean Water Act, in addition to a federal

pesticide law.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last

week marked up the bill, H.R. 872, and Republicans want to

move the measure quickly so it can take effect before April

9. That date is the deadline by which the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is due to announce a new permitting

process for pesticides that takes the court ruling into

account.

Staff for Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), who sponsored the bill,

said they expect it to be considered next week in order to

meet that deadline.

The bill is a reaction to a decision by the 6th Circuit

Court of Appeals in the case National Cotton Council v. EPA.

According to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,

that decision vacated an EPA rule that said using pesticides

in compliance with federal pesticide regulations means a

permit is not required under the Clean Water Act.

Chamber to host discussion on regulatory process

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event Tuesday

called ``restoring balance to the regulatory process.'' The

event will focus in part on the Obama administration's energy

and environmental regulations.

``Tuesday's discussion, hosted at the Chamber, will focus

on how we implement more checks and balances to improve the

process and guarantee sensible regulation, while also

ensuring that federal agencies are held accountable to the

people,'' said Bill Kovacs, senior vice president for

environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the

Chamber.

State Department, World Bank look to boost water security

The State Department will mark World Water Day by expanding

cooperation with the World Bank. Secretary of State Hillary

Rodham Clinton will sign a memorandum of understanding with

the bank at its headquarters.

``The MOU will strengthen support to developing countries

seeking a water-secure future,'' an advisory states.

Think tank gets efficient

The Center for Strategic and International Studies will

host Obama administration officials and other experts at a

forum on energy efficiency. Speakers will include Rick Duke,

the deputy assistant secretary for climate change.

Group to release nuke poll

The Civil Society Institute will release polling that

explores attitudes about nuclear power amid the crisis at

Japan's stricken reactors.

The poll is the ``first major survey to look at the views

of Americans on the broad policy implications of the

Fukushima reactor crisis--including support for federal loan

guarantees for new U.S. reactors, the merits of shifting

federal resources from nuclear to less renewable energy

alternatives and whether or not to end federal

indemnification of the nuclear industry against nearly all

cleanup costs,'' the group said.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to notify the gentleman that I have no further speakers on this side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for this wonderful discussion and debate that we've had here today.

Madam Speaker, the bill we're discussing today does not weaken the Clean Air Act or the regulation of air pollution. It does not interfere with the EPA's longstanding authority to protect the environment. In fact, as I stated in the very beginning, it simply clarifies that the Clean Air Act was never designated, designed or shown to be for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, we would be removing authority that the EPA has not had, should not have, and would not have because this Congress will not pass what is called cap-and-tax regulations.

By gaining control of government spending and eliminating government regulations, the private sector believes that the Republican Congress can be here for the interests of not only the taxpayer but also to make sure that jobs and investment in this economy in the future are very bright.

I applaud my colleagues for coming down to help debate this bill. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My amendment would prevent any funding within the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 to be used to administer or enforce the Davis- Bacon wage rate requirements with respect to any project or program in the underlying text or any amendment adopted today.

Since the Davis-Bacon Act was signed into law in 1931, labor rates for government contracts have been inflated significantly, affecting the cost of administrative expenditures for those awarded projects. Unfortunately, the Davis-Bacon requirement has inadvertently caused the government to pass higher costs on to American taxpayers, often costing 5 to 38 percent more than the project would have cost in the private sector, according to the Associated Builders and Contractors. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the Davis-Bacon Act has cost our government more than $9.5 billion from 2002 to 2011.

I say enough is enough. We must reevaluate and look at what we are doing that costs more money for the government and, ultimately, the taxpayers. We must stop passing this financial burden on the backs of hardworking American taxpayers. In this year alone, the Heritage Foundation has estimated that the Davis-Bacon Act will add more than $10.9 billion to our already burdensome national debt. The American people sent a strong message to Congress in the last election, that it was time to rein in out-of-control government spending. Congress can ensure their voices are heard by voting ``yes'' on this commonsense attempt today.

In 2009, the Public Policy Foundation of West Virginia released a study stating that as many as 1,500 construction jobs could have been created if these wage regulations were repealed or reformed to reflect actual market-based wages. During our current economic times, as tough as they are that this Nation is facing, we need to make sure that it is easier for the private sector to create jobs for the unemployed, not to hinder job growth.

Davis-Bacon requirements undercut and undermine the hard-earned work of small business owners because of the time-consuming and costly requirements of Davis-Bacon. Businesses have constantly expressed frustration over the difficulty of complying with the wage rules of Davis-Bacon. As a result, large and often unionized companies have been awarded more government contracts that come at a higher price to taxpayers.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, which ensures small and large businesses have the ability to compete for all government contracts while saving the American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly what the American people want and need--a better deal in the marketplace.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia is correct. On an average, this Davis-Bacon wage requirement costs an average of 22 percent above market wages. That means that the Davis-Bacon act costs 22 percent or more on costs for getting projects done, which means fewer projects can get done, which hampers the ability that we have, local governments have to ensure that contractors and work is done across this country.

This amendment saves taxpayers millions of dollars--we heard perhaps a billion. It allows for more competition, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider House Concurrent Resolution 28 in the House, if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or her designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening motion except: number one, 1 hour of debate controlled by Representative Kucinich of Ohio or his designee; and, number two, 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and that section 7 of the War Powers Resolution not apply to the concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 170 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 170 provides for a structured rule designed and designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 861 and H.R. 839. This rule allows the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order as long as they were not subject to a point of order and were germane to the underlying text of H.R. 861 and H.R. 839.

This rule provides for debate and amendment opportunities for members of the minority and the majority to change the legislative text of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the two underlying bills. The first piece of legislation, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act, was introduced by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller) on March 1, 2011, and went through committee

markup in the Financial Services Committee last week on March 9. The second bill, H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Modification Program Termination Act, was introduced by my dear friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) on February 28 and marked up last week as well.

Both of these bills went through regular order, which allowed Members from both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer amendments in the Financial Services Committee and in the Rules Committee yesterday.

The chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, has once again provided Members of this body a transparent and accountable structure under the rule that we are discussing today, allowing Members from both sides of this body to offer amendments and both sides to join in debate of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, last fall, Republicans pledged to the American people that we would stop the wasteful spending and put Americans back to work. These two bills that we're discussing today continue to roll back the abuse of taxpayer funds, the diminishment of jobs, and the creation of a proper government responsibility with any balance in the housing sector.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, we also said that we would make sure that we went through regular order and would allow Members time to read the bills. That is what Republicans bring forth to the floor today as we debate these two important aspects that have gone through regular order through the Financial Services Committee.

H.R. 861, the NSP Termination Act, terminates the Neighborhood Stability Program and rescinds $1 billion in unobligated funds that was authorized in the Dodd-Frank bill last year.

Congress has appropriated approximately $7 billion in three rounds of funding for this program. Eligible users for the funds include emergency assistance to State and local governments to acquire, develop, redevelop, or demolish foreclosed homes. So this doesn't stop or assist folks in getting through foreclosures. It gives money to lenders to fix up the houses to sell, while returning not one cent of the $7 billion back to the American taxpayer.

The NSP has done little to resolve the root causes of the increase in foreclosures. In fact, the NSP continues to extend and further exacerbate the current housing downturn. This program represents a costly bailout for lenders, servicers, and real estate speculators who made risky bets on the housing market, all at the expense of the American taxpayer and our debt.

While putting billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, we should understand that this is a program, two programs that must be halted. There should be an appropriate accountability and reporting, and this program lacks both. This is just another two examples, following up what we did last week with two other examples, of the Democrats' solution of throwing money at a problem rather than something that would work and be cost effective.

Taxpayers from all over this Nation are struggling with their mortgage payments, keeping their jobs, and providing for their families. Allowing for a stable economy, a future, and reining in government spending by eliminating wasteful government spending will provide for more transparency and government accountability across economic markets. That is why we are eliminating these two programs today on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Let's be honest about this. Republicans are here to try and save jobs that are on the chopping block from what wasteful government spending has done for us the last 4 years of Democrat control. Today, Republicans are on the floor to stop wasteful Washington government spending, which says directly to the taxpayers we don't want 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend to be put on a credit card, a future debt that our children and our future will be put at risk by mortgaging our future. Republicans are not going to allow that. That is why we're on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is why we will encourage every Member of this body, Republican or Democrat, to make tough decisions today about not just today, but about our future.

The second bill under this rule today, H.R. 839, rescinds the Home Affordable Modification Program known as HAMP. This is another unnecessarily and poorly managed housing program that wastes tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars. Terminating this program would prevent the use of $29 billion of TARP funds, $29 billion of TARP funds we do not think should be spent.

HAMP was established in February of 2009 with the goal of assisting with loan modifications for up to 4 million homeowners. Over the life of this program, only 521,306 loans have been permanently modified, and the redefault rate for these loans is very high.

So what we started with is trying to help 4 million people. Thus far, we have only helped 521,000, but it comes at a high cost to the taxpayer. Only $840 million of the $29 billion earmarked for this purpose has been used--only $800 million of the $29 billion.

We need the money back, Mr. Speaker. We need the money back because this is another case in which the program actually made matters worse for many of the homeowners who were seeking to participate. The government is pushing a program which harms these homeowners. It creates a perverse incentive for borrowers to deliberately and willfully stop making their mortgage payments in the hopes that they can get government loans to reduce their payments.

This program that the government has actually encourages people to quit making payments, which still add up, including the interest on what they owe. It harms their credit ratings and adds, what I think, is a further unfair circumstance in which the government is pushing ``we're here to help you'' when, in fact, it doesn't know the rules of the game or whether a homeowner will even be able to qualify, making the homeowner wait months to then find out, ``Whoops. Sorry. You didn't qualify. Now you need to continue what you're doing.''

A false hope, Mr. Speaker.

The Washington Times, which is a great newspaper here in Washington, published an article on this program on March 1 of this year. It stated that in, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of cases, homeowners are far worse off after HAMP than they were before being talked into and getting involved with the program. Borrowers are typically not told all the potential consequences of falling behind on their mortgages. They're simply told that there's a government plan out there to help you when, in fact, they do fall behind on their mortgages.

Services have repeatedly lost documentation and have provided false information to home borrowers who were in need of assistance and good discussion about how to pay their bills--instead, trying to talk them into participating in a government program and, in some instances, even pushing individuals into default, individuals who could have continued making their payments.

In a report from the Inspector General of TARP to Secretary of the Treasury Geithner on March 25, 2010--that is 1 year ago--he notes: ``Several aspects of the HAMP design make it particularly vulnerable to redefaults.''

It is time to pull the plug. That is why Republicans are on the floor today to say straight up: We need to look at what is not working. We need to look at the $29 billion that has been spent on this program, and we need to be honest with ourselves, as has been noted in newspapers across the country, as to what the Democrats have done. What this administration and this House have done has been adversarial in helping people who needed assistance. Today, we can save the taxpayers $28 billion that has not been spent on this program.

Continued government intervention and the questionable use of taxpayer dollars only prolong our current economic crisis and ensure that the housing market will simply continue to struggle. The market needs to find its own footing free of government intervention and manipulation by this government so that we can get on with a full recovery. The deficit is expected to reach a record under President Obama: using his numbers, $1.65 trillion this year while our national debt is well over $14 trillion. The U.S. and its citizens cannot afford to spend billions of taxpayer dollars that will not be repaid, and it ends up, in many instances,

harming the people it was intended to help.

Job creation is the most effective foreclosure prevention tool. Job losses rather than unsustainable mortgage terms are now the driving force behind foreclosures and mortgage defaults. Eliminating these programs will not only save taxpayer dollars; it will encourage more responsible government spending by the Federal Government.

So, Mr. Speaker, as no surprise to you, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments about our being here today on the floor in a bipartisan way with a bill that went through regular order with an opportunity for any Member that would choose that has any ideas that are germane to the issue and that fall within the rules to be included. And you are going to see where there are a bunch of amendments today.

Mr. Speaker, the conversation that the gentleman and I were having should further extend, and that is the common sense that is related to why we are on the floor today, the discussion about whether we should make it better or simply repeal it. And I would quote from the IG of the TARP fund in his report to Secretary Geithner:

``Although in the final analysis it is up to the policymakers in the administration and the Congress to determine whether it is worth spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on a program that is assumed at its outset to fail ultimately for 40 percent of the participants, several aspects of HAMP's design make it particularly vulnerable to redefaults.''

I think the IG has said it best. When any objective person looked at what the Democrat Congress passed, they would have to question whether it was worth spending tens of billions of dollars on a program at the outset we should have known would fail for 40 percent of the participants. I think that is good reason to say, common sense should say, let's stop the plan, not continue it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

I would like to yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the author of one of the pieces of underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just reminded by the gentleman, Mr. Mica, the favorite son of Florida, who's the chairman of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) had referred that we've done nothing about jobs. But the gentleman, Mr. Mica, as chairman of the committee reminded me that this House passed just 2 weeks ago a transportation bill that had been lagging, waiting since 2009, that will add a substantial number of jobs. And that was a good jobs bill.

So I wouldn't expect to get credit for anything, necessarily, on the floor, but at least we need to be honest about this. The Republicans did pass a bill that was adding jobs as opposed to this massive undertaking that we are trying to save jobs that are at risk as a result of the outlandish spending and wasteful government spending taking place here.

Secondly, the gentleman said, Why are Republicans now trying to get rid of this? Why didn't we do something to fix the program? But I would remind the American people that this is a report that went to the Secretary of the Treasury over a year ago. And I would ask the question: Why did the Democrats, why did this administration continue a failed program? Why did they continue it? That's because they were happy with it. In fact, as we've already read, a 40 percent failure rate and thousands of more people harmed. That's why Republicans are trying to fix this--because we have tried to work.

Today, we're going to pass this on the floor. It's a great bill. And we're going to ask every single person to be able to vote for this opportunity.

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

As soon as it's on the floor, I'll consider that.

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, my friends and colleagues are talking about a no jobs bill, nothing about jobs. But at least there's a purist on the floor and, that is, there was one Democrat in the House who voted against the Republican jobs bill, transportation bill. That was the gentleman, Mr. Polis. So I would think that he would have great standing on saying we've never had a bill that added jobs, but everybody else I would have to question that because they voted for the bill, because, in fact, it's a good jobs bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if it worked that way, we'd be for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will assure the gentleman I will be in Aurora, Colorado, and I'll be pleased to be there this year and probably next year, also.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's asking. I have no further requests for time, and I appreciate the collegiality the gentleman has extended me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for not only engaging in a spirited debate here on floor but also for his collegiality in that endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation is being overrun still by too high a taxation, borrowing, and spending, and just last month, we hit a record deficit, $223 billion in 1 month. That is simply unacceptable. With the debt looming at over $14 trillion and unemployment hovering still around 9 percent, Americans want solutions, not handouts. And that is why we are here on the floor today, to protect the taxpayer and the integrity, I think, of the government, rather than creating more problems, at least trying to alleviate some of those and give the taxpayer back some money. The American people asked Congress to rein in spending and for efficiency, and that is what Republicans are here to do today.

We did this in an open process where every single Member of this body had a chance through regular order to prepare themselves and to come to the floor today. Since Republicans have gained the majority in January we have cut $1.2 trillion worth of spending, first of all, by repealing ObamaCare; secondly, by cutting $61 billion in H.R. 1, $8 billion last week in additional unnecessary government housing programs, and another $30 billion with this rule today. We're getting our job done.

By gaining control of government spending and eliminating wasteful government handouts, the private sector can, again, gain confidence in our economy and the direction of the future of this country to begin investing in jobs and our economic future. After all, we finally decided last year that what we would do is extend tax cuts which will help save jobs and grow our economy.

I applaud my colleagues for introducing the bills we are discussing here today. In just a few minutes, you will see the chairman of the Financial Services Committee or his designee lead that discussion through lots of amendments, lots of ideas by Members.

I want to thank the young chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, David Dreier, for providing us such a great, open, and transparent process. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and perhaps, more importantly, on the resolution before us today.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 16, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day for not only me but many people who live in Dallas, Texas, because today is Ebby Halliday's 100th birthday. I have known Ebby for 22 years. This incredibly successful woman is one of the most generous and hardworking individuals I have ever known. Ebby has always been an entrepreneur, beginning her career selling hats. Today, she is the driving force for change in the real estate industry and a household name all across north Texas.

Ebby's incredible story is the embodiment of America's dream. Her dedication, work ethic, and vision have turned Ebby Halliday Realtors into one of the largest independently owned residential real estate companies in the Nation. Ebby is also well known as a respected community leader. Her active civic involvement and philanthropic efforts have inspired others to give back to those in need. Her name has become synonymous with ethics, class, and generosity.

Over the course of her lifetime, Ebby has witnessed many historic events and changes in our fast-paced world, yet her love for family, friends, community, and this Nation remains steadfast. I am proud to call her my friend, and I know she will be surrounded by many of those today in Dallas, Texas, as she celebrates her 100th birthday. May she be blessed with many more years of health and happiness.

Happy birthday, Ebby Halliday.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman, my friend from New York (Ms.

Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 151 provides for a modified open rule that allows any Member to offer an amendment to the underlying bill as long as it is preprinted in the Congressional Record and complies with House rules. This rule continues to build on the commitment of the Republican majority to consider legislation in a more open, honest, and thoughtful way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. This legislation was introduced by my dear friend, the gentleman, the chairman of the Republican Conference, Jeb Hensarling, on February 28, 2011, and marked up in the Financial Services Committee last week on March 3.

This legislation went through regular order, which included committee hearings prior to a markup and making the text of the legislation publicly available for Members and the public to review prior to consideration in the committee and on the House floor.

The chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, David Dreier, has once again provided Members of this body a transparent and accountable structure under the rule we are debating and discussing today, allowing Members of both sides of this aisle and of this body to offer amendments and to join in the debate of the underlying legislation.

H.R. 836 repeals the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and rescinds and permanently cancels all unobligated funds. It directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to conduct a study to determine the extent of usage of the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program by covered homeowners, which includes members of the armed services, veterans, and Gold Star recipients.

Lastly, it requires the Secretary to submit the report to Congress, including the results of that study and identifying any best practices that could be applied to the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program for ``covered homeowners.''

The Dodd-Frank Act established a $1 billion Housing and Urban Development Emergency Homeowner Loan Program, which provides loans or credit advances to unemployed borrowers who cannot pay their mortgages to make mortgage payments for a period of 12 months, with a possible extension.

These loans increase the amount of the homeowner's indebtedness, or the borrower's indebtedness, so that a borrower who is unable to pay back either the original amount of principal or the additional loans made under the program would quite probably be worse off in the long run. These borrowers derive no benefit from the program and the government will suffer the losses from their eventual defaults. That's the way the program was set up by the Democrat majority.

Continued government intervention and questionable use of taxpayer dollars only prolongs our current economic crisis and ensures that the housing market will continue to struggle. The market needs to find its own footing free of government intervention and manipulation so that we can get on with a full recovery.

The deficit is expected to reach a record $1.65 trillion this year, while our national debt is well over $14 trillion and growing rapidly. As a matter of fact, growing so rapidly that last month a $230-plus billion as a deficit for 1 month, the largest in the history of this Nation, was recorded. Yet what do we hear out of the White House? Spend, spend, spend, including against this bill that they have offered to veto because it would save some money. The U.S. simply cannot afford to loan billions of taxpayers' dollars that will not be repaid.

The Obama administration in its FY 2012 budget proposal estimates that this program will have an almost 98 percent subsidy rate. That means for every dollar spent, the government is expected up-front to lose 98 cents. On every dollar of this program, the government right up-front is expected to lose 98 cents.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder Republicans are trying to go back and look at the programs, the massive spending programs, not only by President Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi but also the committee chairmen and those who brought these measures to the floor that have had a stunning impact on the economy of this country.

Also, HUD regulations set up a process where the bridge loan can be forgiven over a 5-year period. This is irresponsible. It is irresponsible not only now; it was irresponsible at the time it was passed by this House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the President. This is not a loan program, but another government welfare program.

Job creation is the most effective foreclosure prevention tool. Job losses--rather than unsustainable mortgage terms--are now the driving force behind foreclosures and mortgage defaults. The government does not need to be adding additional debt obligations onto borrowers who are already struggling with their current commitments, particularly when doing so adds to the debt burden of every single American, including those who took out these loans who have to suffer through the process as they are seeing their use of a government program that provides not only more debt for the country but tremendous strain on themselves.

Government was not there to help. They were there to indebt the American people. Congress should focus on job creation, not welfare and giveaway programs. This is the best way to prevent more foreclosures and to get our economy back on track.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting H.R. 836 would decrease Federal budget deficits by $840 million over the 2011- 2021 period. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand the current dire emergency that we are facing with the state of the U.S. economy and that American families are struggling. Why should the government go and make matters worse? It is our job as Members of Congress and as legislators to ensure that the policy which is passed by this House has integrity and can be backed up by the full measure of a free enterprise system instead of a government backstop. It is that government backstop that Republicans objected to then and object to now.

We need to make sure that our greatest days lie in our future, not the government handing out checks because the government didn't mind the blank check that it originally satisfied itself for in this legislation. We should be creating opportunities. We should not be holding back Americans from earning not only the opportunity for potential in their future but also for making their life better. Eliminating this program will save taxpayer dollars and encourage more responsible government spending by the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, this was an unwise program, and today Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives to say we can do the right thing today. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by the way, we are working with all the Members of Congress. And that's why we went through regular order, which was a new process for this House from the last 4 years. We also came to the Rules Committee and allowed an open process. And any Member that chose to have an amendment to be offered today simply had to go and tell us ahead of time that they would like a preprinting notice and they could get that done. That is working together with every single Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as she may consume to the chairwoman of the Housing Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, you know, I'm shocked at our friend after friend on the Democratic side who say ``no jobs bill,'' ``no jobs bill.'' But my friends also recognize what the American public does, that we voted, literally the first vote in this House, to overturn what is known as ObamaCare, the massive government takeover of health care in this country that would result in a loss of 800,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority does have a jobs bill, and that is to go and rescind what the Democrats have outrageously done and that is to put this country in a diminished position not only with us being competitive overseas but also for us diminishing American jobs.

No, we're not going to go and do a, quote, jobs bill to add jobs. We're trying to simply go back and save the jobs that are being lost today and would be lost by wasteful government spending, huge government bureaucracies, and so my friends on the other side simply want to come and attack us. Well, the Republicans have it, and so do the American people. We are going to stop the outrageous spending. We are going to attack the rules and regulations which are killing not only business but losing jobs all across this country. We, as Republicans, are going to stand up and say $4 gasoline is outrageous, Mr. President; work on the things from your administration that you are doing that ruin jobs, that make sure we have higher gas prices at the pump, and do those things that would help the American people.

The Republican House majority is one-half of one-third of the body, and we are one-third of government. We are trying to do the things that the American people sent us here for. We are all about trying to reduce wasteful government spending. We are going to take on the laws that have been passed by this President and the former two sessions of Congress that were outrageous spending, tax increases, an assault on employers, making it more difficult for the American people to have freedom and diminishing our future.

So every time one of our Democrat friends goes and says there's no jobs bill by the Republicans, the American people will get it. The Republicans first have to save the jobs that are at risk today; 800,000 net free enterprise system jobs that--if we do not overturn ObamaCare that was passed by this body on March 22, a year ago, we're going to lose even more jobs.

So the most immediate thing we're doing is trying to reduce wasteful government spending, to try and do away with and attack rules and regulations that will kill the jobs that we have, and to make sure that we're telling the American people that this spending spree that we're on causes a massive deficit, a hemorrhaging by this government, including last month $230 billion we overspent. Then we're doing our job. If we are doing those things, we're trying to save the jobs that we've got.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the Republican majority is about. We're not going to let the Democrats get us off our game. We understand what they want. They want to talk about, well, we can look at doing back to some of the spending, but when it comes down to it, they can't pick anything they really will support. Everything is a sacred cow. Everything that we do is a problem if you go and touch it.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, the Republican majority, led by Speaker Boehner and our majority leader Eric Cantor, is all about trying to get back to an America where we have a balance, to where we don't lose more jobs, where we don't add more debt, and we stand up for the American people. That's why we're the new majority party.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

You asked if somebody who knew the answer would stand up. I don't know the answer, but what I will tell you is that we will have the taxation start, and yet, the plan kicks in 2014. So massive taxation will start, and then we will find out what happens.

Mr. Speaker, I stood up and openly said I have no clue how many jobs have been added. But the million-job figure that the gentleman quotes is not a net figure. It's not a net figure. We have lost many, many, many times what we have gained. And the net figure means that when you add in what has been added versus what was lost, this country is in trouble. And I think the American people understand this. They understood it last November. They understand it now.

People are scared. They're scared about their future. They're scared about their job. They're scared about how much gasoline is going to go up. They're scared about whether the EPA is going to come put some more rules and regulations on them. They're scared about what will happen in the long run with their job and health care. They see the diminishment of freedom.

They see where we are in trouble not only in our own homes; we are in trouble with our country. They see that we ran a $230 billion deficit last month alone. They see where this administration is incapable of looking at facts and factors and making a realistic choice about, now that we understand what's happening, what are we going to do when we're in trouble.

The Republican Party is here, and we are not going to be knocked off our game. We're going to go and try and save as many jobs as we can from the onerous rules and regulation, the excessive taxation, and perhaps worst of all, the inattention to try and create a better circumstance for this country.

So that's what we're going to do. We're going to go after and we're going to repeal this ObamaCare. We're going to stay after the rules and regulations, and we're going to make sure that the middle class of this country has a chance to save the job that they have rather than diminishing it.

You have seen, Mr. Speaker, all across this country the States who are in the most trouble have top-to-bottom Democratic-controlled legislatures as well as Democrat Governors. Those States are unwilling to make tough choices. They're unwilling to do the things which would say ``no'' to constituencies who are special interests. Today, the Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we're saying not only ``no'' to special interests, but what we're trying to say is that we need to use common sense and balance.

And I recognized 14 years ago when I came up here that common sense is not common in Washington. But today, part of that common sense takes place with, we're going to read the bills before we vote on them; we're going to go through regular order; we're going to relook at the things which have been passed which diminish jobs and which harm our economy. And those are the things which are on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of our Republican majority. I'm proud of our Speaker, who's from the great State of Ohio, who understands himself, personally, because of the State where he is from, that the State of Ohio is in need of leadership, real leadership, in Washington, DC, just as the rest of the country. And so the Republican Party stands on the floor of the House today. We are about jobs. We're about reducing wasteful Washington spending, and we're going to stand for common sense.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inform the gentlewoman from New York that I have no further requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, the facts of this case state very clearly that this Nation is being overrun; it is being overrun by too much taxing, too much borrowing, too much spending. Just last month, we hit a record deficit, $223 billion. This is unacceptable. The status quo of where we are moving is not acceptable. With the debt looming at $14 trillion and unemployment hovering across the country at 9 percent, and much higher in many areas of the country, including congressional districts that are hurting even more, and I understand this because those who first lose their jobs many times are disabled people and I understand disabled people and their plight that they have also and it is sad, and it hurts us as Members of Congress and it hurts the American people. The American people asked Congress to rein in the spending and do something about jobs, and that is what we are doing. We are not making excuses; we are getting the job accomplished.

Eliminating this program will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. By gaining control of government spending and eliminating wasteful Washington government spending and handouts, the private sector can gain some confidence in the economy and start investing in jobs and a brighter economic future.

I applaud my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), for bringing this legislation, and to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the young chairman, David Dreier, favorite son from California, San Dimas, California. David comes here and so ably runs our Rules Committee for us. We thank them for providing an open and transparent process.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Robert Morris, a dedicated community and home building industry leader.

After graduating from San Diego State University, Mr. Morris became actively involved with builders associations--first, serving as a volunteer with the Building Industry Association of San Diego and then joining the staff as the Director of Membership and later on as the Executive Vice President. Mr. Morris' strong belief in community service was emphasized shortly after his arrival in the great State of Texas in 1994. He sought and gained opportunities to become involved with various civic organizations, serving on boards such as the Fannie Mae Dallas Advisory Council and the North Central Texas Customer Advisory Board.

With his extensive experience and passion for the building industry, Mr. Morris established his presence as the Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the Home Builders Association (HBA) of Greater Dallas. In this role, Mr. Morris also qualified for two home building industry professional designations, the Certified Aging in Place Specialist (CAPS) and the Certified Green Professional (CGP) and continued to expand his knowledge by participating in the National Association of Homebuilders Officers Council Excellence in Learning Program. The HBA and the industry greatly benefitted from his vision, extensive experience, and wealth of wisdom. Mr. Morris has received numerous awards and honors, including the prestigious Texas Association of Builders' Presidential Service Award and the Seldon Hale Lifetime Accomplishment Award.

I know his dedication and leadership will be greatly missed at the HBA. I wish Bob and his wife, Pam, all the best in their future endeavors. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Morris on his retirement and his many achievements in the home building industry.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 128 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 128 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 662. This rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle, the majority and minority, to make sure that they have ample time to participate, come to the floor, and express their ideas, which is what this new Republican majority is enabling Members to do.

I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation is a simple extension of service transportation programs through September 30 of this year.

This legislation was introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Mica, on February 11, 2011, with Ranking Member Rahall as an original cosponsor. It was reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by a voice vote on February 28, 2011. This legislation went through regular order with bipartisan support.

This is a clean, straight extension of current law, providing a hard freeze at 2009 spending levels through the end of this fiscal year. Without this legislation, the spending levels would expire on Friday, March 4, 2011.

In an effort to provide more transparency and accountability of how this body has been run, which is different than how this body has been run for the past 4 years, the Republican Conference adopted a policy that would no longer permit extensions of programs on a continuing resolution or any other appropriations bills. This allows Members a straight up or down vote on an issue at hand and, in this case, it is surface transportation.

The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 continues the authorization of Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs through the end of this fiscal year at the same program funding levels established for fiscal year 2009. This authorization is essential to allow funds that had been included in transportation appropriations legislation to flow to States and local transit agencies. We are not trying to get in the way of decisions that need to be made locally; we are simply trying to make sure that they are legally executed.

Should this straight extension of transportation funding not be signed into law before the March 4 deadline, the impact would be severe and immediate. A shutdown would result in immediate furloughs and suspension of payments to States, which would hamper the Federal Highway Administration's ability to pay contractors. This would jeopardize the States' transportation funding to a tune of $154 million a day, killing ongoing projects, things which had been agreed on and are being done locally.

This level of funding was extended by the previous Congress six times starting in October of 2009. Continuing this funding at 2009 levels allows for the appropriate funding for States to complete and manage their transportation projects. With an extension through the fiscal year, it will allow the new chairman of the Transportation Committee, my dear friend, the favorite son and gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) the appropriate time to hold necessary hearings to review and re- estimate the funding essential for States to carry on their transportation projects.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is also known as the CBO, has concluded that the underlying bill today does not affect direct spending or revenues. Further, the CBO determined

that, ``the nontax provisions of H.R. 662 contain no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.''

Additionally, according to the Department of Transportation, surface transportation allows for international trade, which helps sustain and create jobs that support our national economy.

The data reported in the past 10 years says that U.S. surface transportation trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, has increased 48.6 percent, a 13.8 percent increase in the past year alone. In December 2010, imports were up 41.9 percent compared to December 2000, while exports were up 57.7 percent.

Currently, this trade is valued at $66.5 billion annually. In an ever increasing global market, the United States needs to ensure that our surface infrastructure can sustain the tremendous growth rate of trade so that we can maintain international competitiveness, create jobs and encourage economic growth in the United States of America.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I applaud the Republican leadership for following regular order for the bipartisan nature of this bill, for Republicans and Democrats working together through the entire process, and up to and including the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee, extending an unusual amount of time so that every single Member has an opportunity to come to this body and not only voice what they believe is important to them but also the time where they can come down and speak to important matters of this Congress.

The chairman and ranking member continue to work together to provide a necessary extension that will get us through the rest of the year, and I look forward to an open and transparent process for the reauthorization for next year's funding also. I have confidence in not only Chairman Mica, but also John Boehner and Eric Cantor, as they lead this House of Representatives on transportation issues, to do what's right for a beautiful country that expects Congress to have an open and transparent process that is good for all Members.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

December 2010 Surface Trade With Canada and Mexico Rose 13.8 Percent

from December 2009 (State Rankings in Tables 5 and 7)

Trade using surface transportation between the United

States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

partners Canada and Mexico was 13.8 percent higher in

December 2010 than in December 2009, reaching $66.5 billion,

according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of

the U.S. Department of Transportation (Table 1).

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology

Administration, reported that the value of U.S. surface

transportation trade with Canada and Mexico fell 2.2 percent

in December 2010 from November 2010 (Table 2). Month-to-month

changes can be affected by seasonal variations and other

factors.

Surface transportation consists largely of freight

movements by truck, rail and pipeline. In December, 84.8

percent of U.S. trade by value with Canada and Mexico moved

on land.

The value of U.S. surface transportation trade with Canada

and Mexico in December was up 12.6 percent compared to

December 2005, and up 48.6 percent compared to December 2000,

a period of 10 years. Imports in December were up 41.9

percent compared to December 2000, while exports were up 57.7

percent (Table 3).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Canada

U.S.-Canada surface transportation trade totaled $39.8

billion in December, up 12.2 percent compared to December

2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 17.7 percent

higher in December 2010 compared to December 2009, while the

value of exports carried by truck was 10.4 percent higher

during this period (Table 4).

Michigan led all states in surface trade with Canada in

December with $4.7 billion (Table 5).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Mexico

U.S.-Mexico surface transportation trade totaled $26.8

billion in December, up 16.3 percent compared to December

2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 16.3 percent

higher in December 2010 than December 2009 while the value of

exports carried by truck was 18.7 percent higher (Table 6).

Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in

December with $9.5 billion (Table 7).

The TransBorder Freight Data are a unique subset of

official U.S. foreign trade statistics released by the U.S.

Census Bureau. New data are tabulated monthly and historical

data are not adjusted for inflation. December TransBorder

numbers include data received by BTS as of Feb. 16.

The news release and summary tables can be found at http:// www.bts.gov. More information on TransBorder Freight Data and

data from previous months are posted on the BTS website at

http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/. BTS

will release January TransBorder numbers on March 29.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Carlsbad, California (Mr. Bilbray), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I enjoy my colleagues coming to the floor and talking about us being without a vision and that the people will perish. People are perishing all across our country because of the excessive spending that this administration and the previous two Congresses have placed upon the people. Excessive debt. This year, the President has estimated we will have a $1.650 trillion debt. And as best I can tell you, some sense of reality and dose of discipline must be invoked upon this Congress. That's what we're attempting to do not only by this bill today but by also following regular order, by allowing Members of Congress to come and speak very clearly on the floor, by allowing an open process, things which were never allowed in the previous two Congresses.

I appreciate Members coming to the floor and talking about what's in the best interests of the country. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that the Republican majority is going to do something about jobs. We're going to do something about spending. We will bring discipline, authority, responsibility and actions directly to the floor of the House of Representatives as opposed to spending which was out of control, ideas which ran amok, and a lack of vision and clarity for our future. I'm very proud of what we're doing here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will say that this process that we have had as opposed to having it just mixed in a resolution allows for a motion to recommit for the gentleman and his party, and it is my hope that they will take up that open process that we talked about where we'll see what their ideas are. In a few minutes we'll find out when they make that choice.

Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot of things during this debate, up to and including about thoughts and ideas about shutting down the government, that that looms ahead of us. Not one Republican, not one Republican, is talking about shutting down the government. It is an issue that Republican leadership, including the gentleman Mr. Boehner, the Speaker of this House, has openly talked about that we will do every single thing that we can do to avoid a government shutdown.

So it's my hope that this body would recognize, we're not offering that as a threat to the American people. We're open for doing business. We're trying to make sure we not only address this issue weeks ahead of time but that we're forthright about how we would go about giving options, opportunities, how we would work with the President and the Senate to make sure that we avoid this from happening.

Secondly, we heard about a vision statement, a vision statement that evidently is lacking now from Republicans. Well, the facts of the case are very simple and, that is, the vision that our country sees ahead right now is diminishment of jobs, of a free enterprise system that is overburdened by rules and regulations, a policy that comes from this administration that is about destroying jobs, whether it be from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission or, government-wide, an assault on the free enterprise system and upon employers.

So what we are trying to do is to offer some reassurance today that we will go ahead and reauthorize the Surface Transportation bill and that there will be the understanding that the gentleman--the fabulous chairman of the committee, John Mica from Florida--will, in fact, lead in a bipartisan effort with Ranking Member Rahall to provide the opportunity to make sure that there is public involvement, that open hearings are held, that we in committee talk about this, and that every Member is given a chance to participate.

That is what Republicans are now willing to do: regular order, open processes, and a chance to make sure, as they find their way here to the floor, that every single bill we want, where possible, allows for a Democrat motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, you heard me say earlier today that my Republican colleagues and I are committed to an open process and to far, far more accountability, transparency, and an open process than what our friends have ever allowed us for the last 4 years.

Today's legislation is a step in the right direction. The underlying bill has bipartisan support, even up at the Rules Committee, where Republicans and Democrats support this underlying legislation. It went through regular order, which is a structure which worked, and open debate on the floor. This is just the first step in the necessary transportation funding--an open dialogue with the American people, cities, States, counties--and it is essential that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee takes the time to review where it is and to come up with the recommendations in allowing for a future that will be even brighter and better.

Allowing this funding gives the States the tools that they need. We are working, as Chairman Mica is, with counties, cities, States, and with elected officials all across the country. The hard work that he is doing pays off again today. I will predict that we will pass this rule and this bill on a bipartisan basis because of the way our Speaker, John Boehner, our majority leader, Eric Cantor, and also the great chairman, John Mica, insist on making sure that the floor is run with openness for the body. I look forward to working with Chairman Mica and the rest of the committee on that endeavor.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Private Barney F. Hajiro, Medal of Honor recipient. On January 21, 2011, Private Hajiro passed away in Honolulu, Hawaii at the age of 94.

Barney Hajiro was born in Hawaii in 1941 to Japanese immigrant parents. Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Barney was drafted into the U.S. Army. In 1943, he volunteered to join the 442d Regimental Combat Team composed of second-generation Japanese-Americans and was then sent to Europe to fight the Germans in Italy and France. While fighting in France, the 442d Regiment was called upon to rescue the Texas 36th Division that had been cut off and surrounded by Germans for over a week, earning its nickname the ``Lost Battalion.'' Private Hajiro and his comrades encountered a dangerous and challenging undertaking as the German troops relentlessly fired at the American soldiers from uphill.

When ordered to attack, Barney fearlessly charged ahead up the hill, later referred to as ``Suicide Hill'' towards the heavily fortified enemy position, exposing himself to intense enemy fire, while constantly taking aim at multiple enemy strongholds. He fearlessly met fire with fire and single-handedly destroyed two machine gun nests and killed two enemy snipers. As a result of Private Hajiro's heroic actions, the attack was successful. Private Hajiro's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon him and the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest and most sincere gratitude for the service of Private Barney Hajiro, and honoring the memory and lasting legacy of this brave and selfless United States soldier. May we all strive to be as bold and as dedicated servants of our country as Private Barney Hajiro.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Freese and Nichols, an engineering, architecture, and environmental science firm, and the recipient of the prestigious 2010 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in the small business category.

Overseen by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, the Baldrige Award is the highest level of national recognition granted to organizations for performance excellence. Since its establishment in 1987, 86 organizations have received this prestigious award.

Freese and Nichols, Inc., FNI, traces its historical roots in Texas back to 1894, and has always been dedicated to the spirit of innovation. FNI's emphasis on approaching projects with a fresh and unique perspective allows them to push the boundaries with avant-garde solutions and to stay at the forefront of their field. From designing the first ever LEED certified building to their restoration projects to being conscious of their impact on our environment and striving to make the world a better and cleaner place for future generations, their commitment to responsible and sustainable development is evident. Their community service efforts and partnership with nonprofit organizations speak loudly of their belief in giving back and being good stewards of our local community.

I commend Freese and Nichols for their dedication to innovation and performance excellence; they are truly deserving of this great honor. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Freese and Nichols.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to offer an amendment to H.R. 1 which would decrease the amount the Federal Government subsidizes Amtrak by $446,900,000.

In 2008, the Pew Charitable Trusts Foundation performed a study of Amtrak's services. According to that study, the 20 most egregiously inefficient train lines run annual deficits between $4.9 million and $59.4 million per year, with many operating at a 100 percent loss. My amendment would decrease the spending authority to Amtrak by the amount equal to those lines' losses.

Mr. Chairman, in 1997, Congress passed what was referred to as the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act which required that Amtrak operate without any Federal assistance after 2002. By the way, that was 8 years ago, Mr. Chairman. It has never reached the intended level of self- sufficiency. It is time that Congress stop supporting these failed rail lines. It is important to the taxpayers of this country, Mr. Chairman.

Instead, by eliminating these very inefficient and seldom used lines, Amtrak can focus on its core competency of urban and suburban transportation. For example, the Acela line which operates along the northeast corridor continually operates in a self-sufficient manner. We need to shift Amtrak's focus to the things that it does well, not the extremely inefficient long-distance line it fails to operate within the budget.

Mr. Chairman, Amtrak has proven to be a money-losing venture that the government can no longer sustain and support. In 2008 alone, Amtrak lost $1.1 billion. At a time of record debt and deficit, this amendment stops wasteful spending and directs the entire $446,900,000 to the spending reduction account to help pay down the debt. We must operate within some sense of business operation of common sense. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to reduce Federal spending.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I find it very interesting that we are going to continue operating the service which costs the money, but if I took the money and stopped the service we all of a sudden can't fix all the things that you want to fix.

My gosh, the bottom line is they need to quit operating the service and then use it for what the gentleman says they should use the money for, of the bridges and the operating of the infrastructure.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 42: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: