Floor Statements

Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, it has been discussed throughout this debate this afternoon and this evening that we do face an unprecedented humanitarian emergency with literally thousands of unaccompanied alien children that are crossing our southwest border monthly, a number that has more than doubled since the last year.

It has been said by some that it is due to President Obama's mixed messages and the administration's unwillingness to enforce the law, but regardless of what the reason is, we have a crisis that is growing.

The bill that is before us this evening represents a simple, measured approach to the crisis at the border. It is not comprehensive immigration reform; rather, its focus is on fixing the issues within the context of the law, issues that have fueled the influx of these children.

It also streamlines the process to ensure that those who are not eligible for asylum are quickly and safely repatriated to their families while, at the same time, adding protection to make sure that children who have been trafficked or genuinely in need of asylum get that protection they need.

Like many of my colleagues, I appreciate the leadership's willingness to listen and address these matters in the bill that is before us. I think we have all come together and done a great job to craft this legislation. I believe this version now provides the necessary and appropriate language needed to move forward and to address the crisis that we are seeing.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute on the passing of a gracious and wonderful man who made a significant impact on his state, his community and his family. A man I was proud to call my father-in-law, Albert Clyde McDonald.

He was the kind of man who some may call old-fashioned with his quiet dedication to service--service to God, his family, his land, and his state.

Albert McDonald passed from this life on July 6, 2014 at his home in the Huntsville area, surrounded by his beloved family.

He was born in Dayton, Tennessee to Clyde McDonald and Nahoma Welch McDonald. He was preceded in death by both his parents and his siblings, Malcolm Rhea McDonald and Mary Lynn Goodwin.

He is survived by his wife of 58 years, Shirley Shields McDonald; and four children, Mark Russell McDonald, Stan (Mabel) McDonald, Caroline McDonald Aderholt, and Leah McDonald Engler. Also, he is survived by fourteen grandchildren, Dr. Matthew McDonald, Carter McDonald, Lewis McDonald, Locker McDonald, Lloyd McDonald, Mary Eleanor McDonald, Melissa Suzanne McDonald, Luke McDonald, Manie McDonald, Christian Rutherford, Mary Elliott Aderholt, Robert Hayes Aderholt, Bruce Erich Engler, and Anna Kate Engler.

After graduating from Auburn University in 1953, Commissioner McDonald made his home in North Alabama, planting cotton, soybeans, and grain on his family farm in the Huntsville area. He was a member of various agriculture-related organizations, such as the National Cotton Council, and served on the Cotton Incorporated Executive Committee, and as President of the Southern Cotton Growers Incorporated.

Recognizing that he could play a role in representing agriculture because of his talents and farming experience, Albert McDonald launched his political career in 1974. He served two terms in Alabama State Senate. During his second term, Albert served as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee.

Then, in 1982, he ran for and was elected to serve as Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries for the State of Alabama and was re-elected to serve a second term in 1986. In 1991, he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to be the Executive Director of the Alabama Farm Services Administration. Beginning in 1995, he was appointed by the Huntsville City Council to serve on the governing board of Huntsville Hospital, and was appointed by Alabama Governor Fob James to serve on the Auburn University Board of Trustees in 1996.

Sometimes, he was a man of few words. However, when Albert McDonald spoke, people listened. He was a leader and statesman in every sense of the word, as well as my father-in-law. He will be missed by so many at home and across the state. I can only imagine that he was welcomed to heaven with those sweet words, ``Well done, my good and faithful servant.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the 100th anniversary of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a service unit of the Library of Congress. For Members and staff on Capitol Hill, CRS is known as our own think tank, providing invaluable information. Perhaps most importantly, CRS provides data and analyses free from agendas and free from partisanship. They also provide a range of reports, confidential memoranda, briefings, and programs to Members and staff about policy issues and legislative process. We rely on this information to craft legislation, analyze bills pending before Congress, respond to our constituents, and to ensure the accuracy of communications.

The idea of a legislative reference service for Congress was first championed by Sen. Robert M. LaFollette Sr. (served in the House from 1885-1891, and in the Senate from 1906-1925), and Rep. John M. Nelson (served in the House from 1906-1919, and from 1921-1933). Supporters realized their goal through a Senate floor amendment offered by Sen. LaFollette to the Library's 1915 appropriations bill. Librarian of Congress Herbert Putnam established the Legislative Reference Service (LRS) in the Library of Congress by administrative order on July 18, 1914. In its early years, LRS provided basic reference services to assist lawmakers in their work.

The research service, in its various iterations, has benefited from the Library's collections for its research, analysis, and dissemination of information and materials to assist the Congress.

By the 1940s and following World War II, demands on LRS had increased significantly. The 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act (LRA) called for an increase in the size and scope of LRS and directed it to hire expert policy specialists to provide information to Congress in subject fields aligned with a new committee system. In 1970, the Service underwent another transformation, which renamed it the Congressional Research Service.

Emphasizing the fact that the research and informational needs of the Congress required the services of highly-skilled experts, the 1970 Act mandated that CRS provide authoritative and objective research and analysis and close support for Members and committees. The Service evolved into a 21st century organization that utilizes formats and delivery methods (e.g., CRS4Congress Twitter, CRS.gov, Congress.gov) for CRS products and services.

Today, CRS provides comprehensive, objective and non-partisan research and analysis to the entire Congress on all legislative and oversight issues of interest. In the Second Session of this Congress, CRS identified over 150 issues of interest to Congress that CRS could support.

CRS has a workforce of over 600 analysts, attorneys, information professionals and support staff. These expert, highly-trained and collaborative professional staff are dedicated to supporting the work of the Congress.

In FY2013, Members and committees received information and analysis from CRS in more than 636,000 responses that took the form of 67,000 requests for custom analysis and research, 9,000 congressional participations in 350 seminars, and over half a million instances of Website services.

I want to congratulate the Congressional Research Service as they celebrate this important milestone.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4800, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 4800, making appropriations for FY 2015 for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The bill before us is unique in that the programs supported in this bill will impact every American every day of the year.

We support America's farmers and ranchers, who are very vital to our Nation's economy and our health and well-being. We support those at home in need with food and housing and provide rural businesses with low-interest loans and grants to help them sustain local economies. We help others around the world that face starvation and malnutrition. We support research and development in agriculture to improve productivity and stability. We support the oversight of commodity markets, providing confidence for businesses, traders, investors, and the public. We support a safe food supply and safe and effective drugs and devices. We are fortunate this Nation can and does support these vital programs.

The bill before us this afternoon reflects a delicate balance of needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for FY 2015 spending levels for the departments and agencies that are under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. We have had to carefully prioritize the funding in this bill. We have had to make some hard choices about how to limit spending.

I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for supporting us with a very fair allocation for this bill and for helping us move this bill forward.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the subcommittee ranking member. He has been a valuable partner and colleague as we have moved forward with this legislation. I appreciate his commitment. I appreciate his understanding as we have moved forward on a wide variety of programs in this bill, and I sincerely thank him for his help. While I and the other subcommittee members have a wide array of agriculture in our districts, Mr. Farr represents an area sometimes referred to as the ``salad bowl of the world.''

I want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee for their help, and I also thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who is the ranking member for the full committee.

I also thank the majority staff for their hard work: Tom O'Brien, Betsy Bina, Pam Miller, Andrew Cooper, and Karen Ratzow.

I also appreciate the professionalism and the cooperation of the minority staff. In particular, I want to thank Martha Foley and Hogan Medlin for their help during all of the long hours spent putting this bill and report together, as well as Rochelle Dornatt, Troy Phillips, and Caitie Whelan of Mr. Farr's staff.

When the subcommittee began the FY15 appropriations process, I asked my colleagues to keep in mind three guiding principles. They were: to ensure the proper use of funds through robust oversight, ensuring the appropriate level of regulation to protect producers and the public, and to ensure funding is targeted to vital programs.

These three principles guided us from the time the President's budget request was first submitted to the subcommittee until this bill was put before the House today. This basic framework helped us set principles and priorities during the 10 budget hearings and oversight hearings that we had throughout the spring, which covered all of USDA's mission area, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, and also included the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

They also formed a framework for us to consider the many requests we received from our colleagues on this bill. In particular, we received more than 3,900 requests from 326 Members to support, reduce, or amend funding levels in the numerous accounts of this bill. Of course we could not meet every request, but we tried to address these requests in a bipartisan manner and in a way that was under the House rules. As such, there are no earmarks included in this bill.

The total funding for this bill is $142.5 billion. This is $1.5 billion below the President's request and $3 billion below the FY14- enacted level. The bill includes $20.88 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is the same as the FY14-enacted level. Mandatory spending totals $122 billion, or $3 billion below the FY14 level. These mandatory funds support USDA's farm, conservation, crop insurance, and nutrition programs.

I would like to briefly mention a few highlights that are in this bill.

We provide $2.8 billion for agricultural research. We have received many, many letters requesting support for the land-grant colleges and universities. We were able to provide level funding for them. We also provided $325 million, as requested, for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, which is USDA's premier competitive research grants program.

We provide $870 million for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. This agency works to eradicate plant and animal diseases and keeps the bad bugs out of the country. I am pleased to say that we were able to increase funding to combat citrus greening disease and the viral epidemic affecting the hog producers. This funding will supplement the emergency funding that the administration announced last week for research and surveillance purposes.

The bill also includes more than $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. This is approximately the same as the FY14 level, but $3.8 million above the request. It will maintain more than 8,000 inspectors at more than 6,400 meat, poultry, and egg product facilities across the Nation.

The bill provides $1.5 billion for the Farm Service Agency, and it does not allow the closure of any county offices. This proposal made no sense when the 2014 farm bill is still being implemented in county offices across the Nation. We also fully fund the various farm loan programs in this bill.

For the Natural Resources Conservation Service, we provide $869 million to help farmers, ranchers, and private forest land owners conserve and protect their land and increase funding to help rehabilitate small dams.

This bill is the only one of the 12 appropriations bills that truly focuses on rural America. It provides $2.6 billion for the rural development programs. That includes funding to support $881 million in business and industry loans, $1.3 billion in loans for rural water and waste programs, and $6.2 billion for rural electric and telephone infrastructure. We also provide more than $1 billion for the single- family direct loan program, $1.1 billion for rental assistance, and $30 million for the Mutual and Self-Help program.

This bill includes both discretionary and mandatory funding for USDA's food and nutrition programs.

In particular, it provides $6.6 billion for the Women, Infants, and Children program. This is $93 million below the FY14 enacted level, and it is actually $200 million below the budget request. But I want to be clear about the decreased funding because a declining caseload and large carryover balances from the previous year is why we are doing this. And let me stress that every person who is eligible for the program will be able to receive funding under this funding level in this bill.

The bill includes $20.5 billion in required mandatory funding for child nutrition programs and $82.3 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, sometimes referred to as SNAP. This funding level helps support more than 47 million Americans each month.

To support those in time of need in places like Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, the bill provides $1.7 billion for overseas food aid. We were able to provide a $66 million increase for Food for Peace grants, and $13 million for the McGovern-Dole Education and Child Nutrition Program offset from savings that we found elsewhere in the bill.

The Food and Drug Administration receives $2.6 billion in discretionary funding in this bill. This is an increase of $23 million over the FY14 level. When the user fees are included, FDA will receive $4.5 billion in FY15.

Within the total, the committee provides a $25 million increase of the full amount requested for food safety activities in the President's budget, and drug safety activities are increased by $12 million.

Furthermore, the bill includes $218 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is an increase of $3 million above last year's level and is intended to address information technology needs.

Before I close, I do want to address one issue that has opened up a necessary dialogue in local cafeterias and schools across the Nation. It is the provision that would allow schools to seek a temporary--and let me stress that it is a temporary--waiver from the current school lunch standards if a school district has lost money over the last 6- month period as a result of trying to implement the new regulations.

I have had a constant stream of letters, I have talked to people, received emails, and I have had meetings over the past year with school nutritionists, with the teachers, and the school administrators. I have talked to parents, and I have talked to students, all concerned about the rising cost, the increased waste, and the declining participation in the school lunch program.

To tell the truth, the students have been concerned about the taste, they have been concerned about the variety and the quality of the meals. But, again, we have gone to the school nutritionists, to the teachers, and the administrators who have identified where the real problem is.

This is a real problem in many school districts across the country. Some school districts may not be experiencing this problem, but many, many are across the country. This bill acknowledges the concerns of schools and responds to their requests for a certain amount of flexibility. It only allows schools more time if they need it. In fact, it provides something very similar to the flexibility that USDA recently announced for the whole grain requirements.

The benefits to farmers, ranchers, consumers, businesses, and patients provided in this bill far outweigh any one or two objections a Member may have about this bill. The bill represents our best take on matching needs with limited resources. We have tried to work hard to produce the best bill we possibly can within the resources that we have had to work with in this appropriations process.

I thank the Members for their attention, and I would urge all the Members

to support this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to passing this bill on the floor as we move forward, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.013

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman from California that I will be committed to working with both he and Mr. Crawford as we continue on this issue. I agree with my

colleagues that the final WTO ruling on the pending COOL case could bring irreparable harm to various U.S. industries.

As has been noted, report language has been included expressing the committee's concern that U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada will suffer an economic impact of approximately $2 billion in retaliatory tariffs. The report directs USDA not to implement or enforce the COOL final rule for meat labeling, should the WTO issue a final ruling against the United States.

Again, I can assure both of my colleagues here this afternoon that it is my intention to protect our domestic industries from retaliation. We will closely monitor the progress of the WTO in this matter and will respond as necessary, so that our U.S. economy does not suffer.

I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to discuss this important issue with both of you, and I look forward to working with both of you as we move forward.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

I know this has been a controversial issue in this bill. I sincerely think that everybody in this House is well-intentioned about kids' meals, so I in no way want to say the other side is trying to hurt the schoolchildren. To indicate that the Republicans are trying to hurt the school kids is a complete misreading on what the Republicans are trying to do and what we are trying to do in this bill.

There are so many good intentions about this. I think what has happened is, a lot of the regulations as they have come down to a lot of these school districts, every school district is different, and it is hard to have a cookie cutter mentality in every school district in the Nation. That is really what makes this Nation. We are many States but we are one Nation, and they are not all the same.

What this legislation would do with just some commonsense standards-- and I by no means say that my colleagues have bad intentions. I would never say that to my colleague from California, and I hope he would not say that about me on this issue. We are talking about providing lunches and flexibility to students and to the school nutritionists to meet their needs. We are not asking that this roll back the nutrition standards, we are not asking that it gut the underlying law. But some of the comments made, those would be the comments that you would think that we are trying to gut the entire law.

Mr. Davis made some very important comments when he spoke. All of us want kids to eat healthy meals, and we want to see child obesity decline. But simply providing school lunches that the kids won't eat and stopping there is not what this is about.

Student participation in the program continues to decline. A lot of the students are now bringing their lunches while the kids that are on these meal programs, they have no choice to eat this food while the other kids are bringing much more unhealthy food to the cafeteria, and watching them eat this other kind of food. It is just really disconcerting to see this. But we all have the same goal. Like I said, it is very disconcerting to hear that some of us would want our kids to be obese or to be unhealthy, and that is furthest from the truth.

I just want to say that because I think it is very important as we move forward with this debate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how many speakers the minority has.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to clarify. I think the school district in Illinois you are talking about, they got out of the system because a hard boiled egg was not appropriate, or anything more than 12 ounces of skim milk was deemed inappropriate. That is what we are talking about, the regulations that are so out of whack.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the bill provides $25 million for USDA to

make the school meal equipment grants. I understand the intent of this amendment would be to increase the funding to match the President's request for a total of $35 million. Since there is an acceptable offset, we would be willing to accept this amount.

Will the gentleman yield?

I was simply asking the gentleman to yield to say we would accept your language.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the House bill does provide significant funding for this project and report language regarding the citrus growing disease. Mr. Rooney, Mr. Valadao, along with Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Farr, have raised this issue. We understand how devastating this disease has been, especially to the Florida growers and, certainly, to California as well.

The bill, itself, provides $44.5 million for the programs that protect the citrus industry, so I believe we have addressed the urgency of the need in this bill. I do accept the gentleman's amendment, understanding this is a very important issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

We will accept your amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for the Federal deficit and the debt problem that we are facing in this Nation. It is something that is very serious, and I appreciate his hard work on this issue. I know that he is very concerned, as we all are, about it.

I am going to have to reluctantly oppose the amendment. We have carefully reviewed the President's budget request, and we believe that we have appropriately and adequately funded the various mission areas within the Department of Agriculture, and because of that, as I say, I will oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, again, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for the Federal debt, the deficit problem that we are facing in this Nation. Again, it is a very serious issue, and we need to address it in many ways.

However, I would have to oppose this amendment, reluctantly. We have carefully reviewed the President's budget, the request that he has made, and we have tried to appropriately and adequately fund the mission areas within the Department of Agriculture.

For that reason, again, we would have to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, 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 move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the bill that we have on the floor provides over $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The amount is an increase of $3.8 million above the President's own request.

Food safety is certainly important. I don't think anyone can argue that that is not a very important issue that we have made in this bill. We have proven that by exceeding the amount requested by the minority's own administration request.

Now is not the time to be reducing funds from the Farm Service Agency. They are tying trying to implement the new farm bill and provide assistance to American farmers and ranchers.

We have a bipartisan request to prevent the administration from implementing their plan to close FSA offices. Support of the amendment is equivalent to supporting a closure of FSA offices across the country.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amount, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the Farm Service Agency is a very important aspect of this bill. We are hearing from a lot of our Members about FSA office closure. If this amendment passes, this may mean the closure of some of the FSA offices.

Again, I would oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that we have seen this amendment.

I do have to rise in opposition. We are very concerned that this is not the appropriate time to be reducing funds for FSAs. We are trying to implement the new farm program at this time, providing assistance to the farmers and ranchers across America.

We have had bipartisan requests to prevent the administration from implementing its plan to close FSA offices. Members on both sides of the aisle have voiced their concerns to us about these closures. Supporting this amendment is equivalent to supporting the closure of offices, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would severely starve the very regulator charged with overseeing the swaps, futures, and options markets of desperately needed information technology resources.

The bill I brought before the House this afternoon would return information technology investments to just below the FY 2012 level, and this amendment would reduce IT by 33 percent.

This amendment would only accomplish one objective, to grow the size of our government bureaucracy by hiring unneeded personnel to write more overreaching rules and regulations. Staff at the CFTC is already at a record high.

The CFTC is preparing to regulate high-frequency trading. This amendment would ignore the reality of a regulator whose 82 percent of its employees make more than six-figure incomes, and staff enters by hand almost 20,000 paper forms per year. This is an exhaustive and costly exercise. This amendment would reward those misplaced resources.

CFTC has seen a 166 percent increase in the amount of data it takes in. It takes in hundreds of millions of records per day and does not have the capability to store that data internally.

The amendment ignores the advice of former CFTC chief economist, who was the recipient of the Chairman Gary Gensler's award for excellence in 2010, who stated:

Financial regulation should recognize that automation and

increasingly higher transaction speeds make it nearly

impossible for humans to provide effective layers of risk

management.

Regulators need to change their surveillance and

enforcement practices to be more cyber-centric rather than

human-centric.

Therefore, based on that information, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I just rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, this bill is important. The bill that we have before the House would return the information technology investments to just below that of FY 2012, and this amendment will reduce IT by 33 percent. We feel like IT is very important. We think that the bill, as written, should stand, and therefore we would oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend from Georgia because it would negatively impact a range of NSF activities. The amendment would hamstring NSF's main operational account that funds activities like financial management, grant oversight, and procurement.

I know the gentleman cares very strongly about protecting the taxpayers' interests, and I don't believe that making it more difficult for NSF to monitor and to oversee its funds helps those interests in any way.

The memo would eliminate the increase that the bill provides for NSF's critical STEM education programs. These funds are urgently needed to address widespread and serious challenges that we have currently in our U.S. economy.

Compared to our major international competitors, our K-12 students do not perform well in STEM-related subjects, and our universities produce a smaller percentage of STEM-related graduates.

In addition, our STEM workforce is not big enough to meet the current or projected demand for skilled employees by high-tech companies. NSF's STEM education programs will play a major role in solving these programs by improving the quality of STEM instructors, by attracting more students to STEM fields, and by enabling talented students to pursue STEM degrees.

These investments are important to the economy and to the overall importance of the Nation as a whole. For this reason, I would urge my fellow Members to reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment of my colleague from Georgia.

The recommendation in this amendment provides $350 million for Legal Services, which is a reduction to 2008 level of almost $70 million. It is $80 million below the 2010 request.

I understand there are some concerns with Legal Services Corporation- funded programs, but the bill contains several important restrictions on political activity by the LSC grantees. That would include lobbying, abortion litigation, and class action lawsuits. These restrictions cover both the Legal Services funds as well as private funds.

The administration proposed to eliminate several of these restrictions, but the House bill rejects this proposal.

We have included language in the committee report directing Legal Services to vigorously enforce the restrictions on political activity, which we think is very important.

Throughout my time in Congress, I have supported Legal Services for Americans who would not otherwise have adequate access to civil legal assistance. We are facing an extremely challenging budgetary environment--and I realize that--but the recommendation is a fair compromise between the need for austerity and also the balance to provide civil legal assistance to low-income Americans.

For that reason, Madam Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order upon the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 194, H.R. 4292--``To amend chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, to clarify the exception to foreign sovereign immunity set forth in section 1605(a)(3) of such title.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 195, H.R. 3584--``To amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to authorize privately insured credit unions to become members of a Federal home loan bank, and for other purposes.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 196, Journal--On Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay a special honor to Mrs. Rosalyn Fabianke, of Red Bay, Alabama, as the project director for the Smithsonian Institution's Museum on Main Street exhibit entitled, ``The Way We Worked.'' It was held in Red Bay from September 14-October 25, 2013. Mrs. Fabianke deserves to be recognized for her unselfish dedication to this project. She is truly one who embodies the American spirit of community.

Each year the Smithsonian Institution partners with Museum on Main Street and chooses six cities to host a traveling exhibit. This year, Red Bay was chosen as the inaugural city to display the exhibit, ``The Way We Worked,'' documenting how industry has

shaped our country and how it has changed over the years. Each city is further tasked with taking the exhibits from the Smithsonian and incorporating them into the local culture. Through the creativity of Mrs. Fabianke and her dedicated volunteers, Red Bay integrated the exhibit with its library, museum, churches, local industries, and other aspects of the town's community life.

Red Bay, a town of just over 3,000 residents, had a total of 6,692 visitors to the exhibit, coming from 41 States and four foreign countries. This number broke all previously held records listed by the Alabama Humanities Foundation for the number of people attending a traveling Smithsonian exhibit. Mrs. Fabianke's skilled leadership and guidance drove the momentum of this project and were influential in the success of the event.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor Mrs. Rosalyn Fabianke for her role as the project director of this internationally viewed exhibit and for her enduring impact on her community and the great State of Alabama. I join her family, friends and colleagues in congratulating her on a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 56--H. Res. 447-- Supporting the democratic and European aspirations of the people of Ukraine, and their right to choose their own future free of intimidation and fear, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'';

on rollcall No. 57--JOURNAL--On Approving the Journal, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'';

on rollcall No. 58--H. Res. 475--On Ordering the Previous Question, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3193) to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to

strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, providing for proceedings from Feb. 13, 2014-Feb. 24, 2014, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'';

on rollcall No. 59--H. Res. 475--On Agreeing to the Resolution, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3193) to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, providing for proceedings from Feb. 13, 2014-Feb. 24, 2014, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'';

on rollcall No. 60--S. 25--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal features of the electric distribution system to the South Utah Valley Electric Service District, and for other purposes, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'';

on rollcall No. 61--S. 540--On Passage to designate the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, had I been present, I would have voted ``no''; and

on rollcall No. 62--H.R. 3448--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide for an optional pilot program allowing certain emerging growth companies to increase the tick sizes of their stocks, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, every four years, on January 20th, all Americans celebrate the inauguration of a new President. It is a time of hope and a quadrennial reminder of the enduring nature of our democracy and the peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next.

January is also a time for celebration and commemoration for a friend and ally, the Republic of Azerbaijan. This January marks the 24th anniversary of the events that marked the beginning of the end of Soviet rule over Azerbaijan, an occupation that existed for much of the 20th Century.

This time period is referred to in Azerbaijan as ``Black January,'' when violent conflict erupted in Azerbaijan's capital city of Baku on January 19-20, 1990 Soviet troops killed over 100 nationalist demonstrators and wounded another 700 Azeri citizens. When Soviet troops fired on innocent civilians, including old people and children, demanding freedom, it became a defining moment in recent Azeri history.

Azerbaijan eventually declared its independence from the U.S.S.R. on October 18, 1991. In the report, ``Black January in Azerbaijan,'' Human Rights Watch put the events into a larger perspective: ``the violence used by the Soviet Army on the night of January 19-20 was . . . an exercise in collective punishment . . . intended as a warning to nationalists, not only in Azerbaijan, but in the other Republics of the Soviet Union.''

I ask the House of Representatives to join me in commemorating--with our friend and ally, Azerbaijan--the events of Black January in 1990, events which began in tragedy but culminated in the birth of an independent nation and ally of the United States. May God bless this nation as it continues to move forward.

Madam Speaker, thank you for bringing this critical bill to the floor today. I'd also like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for authoring this legislation.

Coming on the heels of the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, this bill signifies our staunch support of life and the importance of preventing taxpayers' funds from being used to pay for abortion.

For years, our government has had an uneven approach to federal funding of abortions. This bill would create a single, unified policy across all federal agencies. U.S. taxpayer funds are not to be used to pay for abortions whether it be funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act; funding for health plans that include elective abortion coverage for Federal employees; congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia; or funding through the Peace Corps or

federal prisons or federal immigration detention centers to pay for elective abortion.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will do just what the title says. It will ban the use of federal funds for abortion or health plans that cover abortion. H.R. 7 prohibits abortions at facilities owned or operated by the federal government, and prevents federal employees from performing abortions within the scope of their employment.

The founding fathers strongly believed that human beings are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which is the right to life, and therefore the right to life of each human being should be preserved and protected by every human being in the society and by the society as a whole. It is our duty as Members of Congress to protect those who cannot speak for themselves.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for the time.

Madam Speaker, I also wanted to personally thank the chairman for his work and the work of his staff because shepherding all 12 of these appropriations bills is no easy task, especially as it comes down to the issues that are the most difficult to discuss and to come to a conclusion on. So, again, I thank the chairman for his work and that of his staff, and how he conducts his staff in these negotiations.

I would also like to echo something that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said in his opening comments about one of our subcommittee clerks, Martin Delgado. He is retiring from the subcommittee after 16 years. As was mentioned, he is someone who knows the subject matter of agriculture very well. He has gone beyond the call of duty in his job as clerk of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture. So he is someone that is going to be missed from this body. We wish him the best and wish him well in his new endeavors.

Of course I do want to rise in support of the FY14 Consolidated Appropriations Act. This agreement encompasses the work of, as I mentioned, all 12 appropriations subcommittees and is the culmination of work that began last spring when we first started hearings on the President's budget request.

I also would like to assure my colleagues that, contrary to what they may have heard, the bill has not only been read but that every word and every number has been scrutinized, and there are no surprises in this bill.

As it has been said, this legislation, while funding the Federal Government for the remaining part of the fiscal year, continues to reduce spending and the overall spending level in this agreement is lower than the FY09-enacted spending level. Most importantly, it is $191 million less than President Obama submitted in his FY14 budget request.

The Agriculture division of this agreement, which I worked most closely with over the last year, has critical funding for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Farm Credit Administration.

Funding in this agreement will ensure that American producers can continue to produce the most abundant and safest food supply in the world. Agricultural research is funded at $2.6 billion, which will help keep America at the forefront of cutting-edge research and competitive around the globe.

I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to honor Mrs. Evelyn Stevens, a member of my staff for almost seventeen years. Evelyn is retiring this year after over 34 years of service to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Evelyn began working for my predecessor, Congressman Tom Bevill, in 1979 and has worked continuously since then with passion and dedication for the constituents of the current Fourth Congressional District of Alabama. It would be difficult to count the number of constituents that she has helped during her tenure with the Fourth District of Alabama.

Evelyn was married for almost 40 years to Milton ``Bud'' Stevens and has two daughters, Renita Rigney and Amelia Sutter. She has five grandchildren and ten great-grandchildren with two more great- grandchildren soon to be born. She enjoys traveling with her daughters and takes the time to visit a different baseball stadium in the country during a trip they take every year. Evelyn is also an avid bowler, bowling every Tuesday evening with her team.

Few people can look back on their life and see that they have contributed so much to the well-being of their fellow citizens and their country. Evelyn Stevens is one of those people.

On behalf of myself and all the people of Alabama's Fourth Congressional District, I can never thank her enough for her hard work and dedication to serving the people of Alabama and the United States of America.

May God bless Evelyn in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 551, H.R. 185--To designate the ``Paul Brown United States Courthouse'' in Sherman, Texas, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 552, H.R. 3205--Promoting Adoption and Legal Guardianship for Children in Foster Care Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 553, on approving the Journal, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''